The double-blind system is implemented through strict editorial controls within the manuscript management system. All identifying metadata is removed prior to reviewer access, and communication between authors and reviewers is mediated exclusively through the editorial office. This structure ensures that assessment focuses purely on the scientific and scholarly merit of the manuscript, reinforcing transparency and procedural integrity throughout the publication workflow.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts electronically through the journal’s official online submission system. Submissions must comply with the journal’s author guidelines, formatting template, citation style, and ethical standards. Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to the Managing Editor or relevant Section Editor, who oversees the editorial workflow, verifies completeness of submission documents (including authorship declaration, conflict of interest statement, and originality statement), and ensures compliance with ethical requirements before proceeding to the next stage.

Authors are required to confirm that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere. Any use of third-party materials must be properly licensed and cited. Where applicable, research involving human participants, archival materials, or sensitive data must include evidence of ethical clearance or institutional approval. Failure to comply with submission requirements may result in administrative rejection prior to review.

2. Initial Evaluation and Similarity Screening

The editorial team conducts a preliminary evaluation to assess alignment with the journal’s scope, academic relevance, methodological soundness, and adherence to formatting requirements. At this stage, all manuscripts are subjected to mandatory similarity screening using iThenticate by Turnitin. The journal enforces a strict maximum similarity threshold of 10%, excluding properly cited references, direct quotations, and bibliographic sections.

Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may be returned to authors for clarification and revision or rejected outright, depending on the severity and nature of overlap. The journal applies a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, redundant publication, mosaic plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, citation manipulation, and artificial text generation without disclosure. This policy aligns with international best practices in publication ethics and ensures the originality, authenticity, and scholarly independence of every published article.

In cases of suspected ethical violations, the editorial board conducts a documented investigation process. If misconduct is confirmed, actions may include rejection, blacklisting, institutional notification, publication of correction notices, or formal retraction in accordance with established ethical procedures.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with recognized academic competence and publication records in relevant fields. Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, research experience, prior review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial office ensures that all identifying author information is removed from the manuscript file before reviewer assignment to preserve the integrity of the double-blind system.

Reviewers must formally confirm their willingness to review and declare any potential conflict of interest before accessing the manuscript. Individuals lacking sufficient expertise, demonstrating prior bias, or facing ethical conflicts are not appointed. This reviewer selection process ensures competent, fair, and academically responsible evaluation.

4. Review Process and Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical depth, clarity of argumentation, adequacy of references, and relevance to Islamic heritage and civilizational studies. Evaluations must be objective, evidence-based, and constructive, providing detailed recommendations for improvement where necessary.

The standard review period is approximately four to six weeks. Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, distribute, reproduce, or use the material for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage. Reviewer performance—including quality, thoroughness, analytical depth, consistency, and timeliness—is periodically assessed by the editorial board to ensure sustained excellence, accountability, and quality assurance within the peer review ecosystem.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, editorial evaluation, ethical considerations, journal standards, and the publication’s strategic academic direction. Decisions are communicated formally to the corresponding author with consolidated reviewer feedback to ensure clarity and transparency.

• Accepted as is
• Accepted with Minor Revisions
• Accepted with Major Revisions
• Resubmit for Review (Conditional Rejection)
• Rejected

Editorial decisions are independent and free from external influence, including sponsorship, institutional pressure, or commercial considerations. The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over final publication decisions.

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors required to revise must submit a revised manuscript with tracked or highlighted changes accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment systematically. Minor revisions are typically expected within two weeks, while major revisions may be granted up to four weeks. Failure to respond adequately may result in rejection. Revised submissions may undergo additional rounds of review at the discretion of the editorial board to ensure full compliance with academic standards.

The revision process is designed as a constructive scholarly dialogue aimed at strengthening argumentation, improving methodological clarity, refining theoretical frameworks, and enhancing overall academic contribution prior to final acceptance.

7. Article Processing Charge (APC)

The journal applies a transparent post-acceptance APC policy. No fees are charged during submission, initial screening, or peer review. APC obligations arise only after formal acceptance. An official invoice is issued to the corresponding author detailing payment instructions. All transaction charges are borne by the payer. Mandatory professional translation fees apply to manuscripts submitted in languages other than English, Indonesian, or Arabic to ensure publication quality and international accessibility.

The APC supports editorial management, digital preservation, DOI registration, metadata indexing, website maintenance, and long-term open access dissemination, ensuring sustainable and accessible scholarly communication.

8. Galley Proof and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, layout editing, metadata preparation, DOI registration, and final proofreading. Authors receive galley proofs for verification of accuracy prior to publication. Only typographical and minor corrections are permitted at this stage. The journal ensures compliance with citation standards, metadata indexing requirements, digital archiving protocols, and ethical policies before final online publication.

Peer Review Integrity

Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization is fully committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and preventing publication malpractice. The journal harmonizes its policies with internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing and aligns with its official Publication Ethics Statement available on the journal’s website.

In implementing these standards, the journal integrates ethical oversight across all stages of the editorial workflow, including submission screening, peer review, editorial decision-making, production, and post-publication management. Ethical governance is applied consistently to authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to ensure integrity, transparency, accountability, and scholarly responsibility. The journal continuously updates its ethical framework in response to evolving international standards in academic publishing and research integrity.

1. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, editorial discussions, or publication decisions to unauthorized individuals. Confidential information may not be used for personal advantage or third-party benefit.

Confidentiality extends to all supporting materials, supplementary files, data sets, peer review reports, and internal correspondence within the manuscript management system. Access to manuscript information is strictly limited to individuals directly involved in the editorial and review process. Any breach of confidentiality constitutes a serious ethical violation and may result in removal from editorial or reviewer responsibilities.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality

Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, clarity, relevance, and academic contribution. Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political orientation is strictly prohibited. Reviewers must provide unbiased and substantiated evaluations.

Objectivity requires that assessments be grounded in verifiable academic standards and supported by clear reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate, and all feedback must remain professional and constructive. Editorial independence is safeguarded from external influence, including commercial interests, institutional pressure, or ideological bias, ensuring that publication decisions reflect scholarly value alone.

3. Timeliness

The journal prioritizes efficient processing while maintaining review quality. Authors are regularly informed about manuscript status to ensure transparent communication and professional service.

Editors and reviewers are expected to adhere to established review timelines and promptly notify the editorial office if delays occur. Timely handling of manuscripts reflects professional respect for authors’ scholarly efforts and contributes to the overall efficiency and reliability of the academic publication process. While speed is valued, it never compromises review rigor or ethical scrutiny.

4. Transparency and Accountability

All editorial actions are documented within the journal management system. Decisions are reasoned, evidence-based, and aligned with journal policy. This ensures procedural integrity and traceability.

Transparency is reflected in clear communication of editorial criteria, review outcomes, and revision expectations. Accountability is maintained through internal documentation, audit trails, and policy adherence. In cases requiring correction, retraction, or clarification, the journal acts openly and responsibly to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

5. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence objectivity. Individuals with conflicts must recuse themselves, and replacements will be appointed to maintain fairness.

Conflicts of interest may arise from collaborative relationships, supervisory connections, funding dependencies, competitive academic positions, or personal affiliations. Disclosure ensures transparency and protects the credibility of editorial decisions. Where potential bias is identified, the editorial office reassigns responsibilities to preserve impartial evaluation and public trust in the publication process.

6. Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

The journal maintains zero tolerance for plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, improper authorship attribution, citation manipulation, and unethical research practices. Allegations of misconduct are investigated thoroughly and may result in rejection, retraction, publication of correction notices, author sanctions, or institutional notification in accordance with ethical standards.

Research misconduct also includes undisclosed use of artificial intelligence tools in generating scholarly content without proper acknowledgment, falsified peer review practices, and unethical data handling. When credible allegations arise, the journal follows a structured investigative procedure, allowing authors the opportunity to respond before final decisions are made. Post-publication corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are issued transparently where necessary to protect the integrity of the academic record.

7. Peer Reviewer Recognition

The journal formally acknowledges the essential role of peer reviewers in safeguarding scholarly standards. Reviewer contributions are recognized through internal records and periodic acknowledgments. Performance is evaluated based on timeliness, analytical depth, and constructive engagement.

Reviewers serve as guardians of academic quality and intellectual rigor. Their voluntary contributions are fundamental to maintaining the credibility of the journal. Recognition mechanisms may include formal acknowledgment listings, certificates of contribution, and consideration for editorial appointments based on consistent excellence in review performance.

Through these comprehensive policies, Senarai ensures the credibility, transparency, accountability, and ethical integrity of its peer review system and published scholarship, fostering responsible academic knowledge dissemination at national and international levels.