Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization employs a multi-stage process to ensure a rigorous and unbiased peer review of submitted manuscripts. The following outlines the key stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors are invited to submit their original research articles electronically via the journal's online submission system. Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the submitted manuscript to the Managing Editor, who oversees the subsequent steps of the review process.

2. Preliminary Manuscript Assessment

The Managing Editor, in collaboration with the editorial team, conducts an initial assessment to determine the manuscript's suitability for peer review. This assessment evaluates the manuscript's adherence to the journal's scope, formatting guidelines, and overall quality. The editorial team may:

• Accept the manuscript directly if it demonstrably meets the journal's high standards and requires no external peer review.
• Reject the manuscript outright if it falls outside the journal's scope, exhibits significant flaws in methodology or presentation, or does not comply with submission guidelines.
• Forward the manuscript for peer review if it is deemed potentially suitable for publication.

To uphold academic integrity, all submitted manuscripts undergo a plagiarism detection check using Turnitin software.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process. The Section Editor identifies and invites at least two experts in the relevant field to evaluate the manuscript critically. In this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure objectivity. Reviewers are provided with a standardized review form developed by Senarai to guide their evaluation.

Reviewer Expertise and Quality: Senarai considers its reviewers to be experts in the specific scientific topics addressed in the submitted articles. Reviewers are expected to provide a comprehensive written assessment of the research's strengths and weaknesses, focusing on the clarity, rigor, and significance of the reported research. The aim is to identify the most appropriate and high-quality contributions for publication in the journal. Individuals lacking demonstrable expertise in the manuscript's subject matter are not considered eligible to serve as reviewers.

Reviewer Performance Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief periodically assesses reviewer performance, including the quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of their reviews. These evaluations inform decisions regarding reappointment to the Senarai Editorial Board and future invitations to review. Individual reviewer performance data is treated with strict confidentiality and is accessible only to the editors.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations: Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in a professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive manner. They should provide specific and actionable feedback to the authors, focusing on areas for improvement.

Recommendations and Editorial Decision-Making: While reviewers may offer a recommendation regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication (e.g., accept, revise, reject), they should acknowledge that the final decision rests with the journal's editors, who must consider the feedback from all reviewers and the overall needs of the journal. Therefore, reviewers are encouraged to provide a well-reasoned argument for their recommendation, based on the manuscript's merits and shortcomings. Articulating the arguments for and against publication is more valuable to the editors than a simple binary recommendation.

Manuscript Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are considered privileged communications and must be treated with the utmost confidentiality by reviewers. They should not be retained, copied, or shared with any third parties without the explicit written permission of the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to adhere to the agreed-upon deadlines for submitting their evaluations. If a reviewer anticipates being unable to meet the deadline, they should promptly inform the Section Editor to discuss the possibility of an extension or the assignment of a new reviewer. The typical timeframe for the initial review is six weeks.

4. Communication of Editorial Decision

Following the completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author. This decision may be:

• Acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
• A request for revisions (minor or major).
• Rejection of the manuscript.

The anonymity of the reviewers is maintained throughout this communication.

5. Manuscript Revision

If revisions are requested, authors are provided with the reviewers' detailed comments and suggestions and are given a specific timeframe to revise their manuscript accordingly. Authors are also required to submit a detailed response letter that addresses each point raised by the reviewers, outlining the changes made in the revised manuscript or providing a scholarly justification for not implementing a specific suggestion.

6. Resubmission of Revised Manuscript

Authors resubmit their revised manuscript through the journal's online submission system, following a process similar to the initial submission. The resubmitted manuscript may be subject to further review by the original reviewers or new experts, at the discretion of the editors.

7. Final Acceptance Notification

Once the revised manuscript is deemed satisfactory by the reviewers and the editors, the corresponding author receives formal notification of the manuscript's final acceptance for publication.

8. Galley Proof and Publication Process

Upon final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the galley proof stage. During this stage, the manuscript undergoes professional formatting, copyediting, and proofreading to ensure accuracy, consistency, and adherence to the journal's style guidelines. Authors are typically given an opportunity to review the galley proofs before the final version is published, either in print or online, according to the journal's publication schedule and format.

Editorial Decision Outcomes

The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board, in their final deliberation, carefully consider the feedback provided by the peer reviewers. The possible editorial decisions include:

• Accepted as is: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication in its current form, without any required revisions.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted, contingent upon the author(s) making minor corrections within a specified timeframe. The revised version is typically reviewed by the handling editor.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript demonstrates significant potential but requires substantial revisions to address the concerns raised by the reviewers and/or editors. The revised manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review.
• Resubmit (Conditional Rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript for publication after the authors have made extensive revisions that thoroughly address the identified weaknesses. A resubmitted manuscript is treated as a new submission and will undergo a full peer-review process.
• Rejected (Outright Rejection): The journal has decided not to publish the manuscript due to fundamental issues related to its originality, methodology, findings, or overall quality, even if substantial revisions were to be made.