The Journal fully aligns its peer review procedures with the internationally recognized principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies ethical oversight consistently across all stages of editorial management. To ensure a structured and efficient workflow, editorial responsibilities are systematically distributed among the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewers, and Administrative Staff.

The Editor-in-Chief retains full executive authority over final editorial decisions and the overall strategic direction of the journal. The Managing Editor oversees the daily operations, monitors the editorial workflow, ensures compliance with international publishing standards, and coordinates between all editorial layers. The Editor facilitates the substantive evaluation of manuscripts through initial scholarly assessment, reviewer coordination, and formulation of editorial recommendations. Reviewers provide independent, double-blind scholarly judgment based on rigorous academic merit. Administrative Staff support the process through submission handling, metadata verification, document preparation, system administration, and managing formal correspondence.

The journal applies a structured editorial workflow to ensure timely dissemination of research without compromising our commitment to the highest standard publications. Overall, the estimated time from initial submission to publication is approximately 12 weeks. This timeline is subject to the responsiveness of authors and reviewers, as well as the completeness of submitted materials. The specific estimated duration for each editorial stage is integrated into the detailed procedures below.

Phase 1: Manuscript Evaluation and Review

1. Manuscript Submission and Administrative Check

Authors are required to submit manuscripts electronically exclusively through the journal’s official submission system. Submissions must comply with the journal’s author guidelines, manuscript template, and citation style. Upon receipt, the Administrative Staff conduct an initial administrative check. This step verifies the completeness of the submission package, ensuring the presence of an anonymized manuscript file, a separate title page containing author metadata, abstract, keywords, authorship declarations, conflict of interest statements, and originality guarantees.

Authors must formally confirm that the manuscript is an original work, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration elsewhere. Submissions that fail to meet these fundamental administrative, formatting, or legal requirements are promptly returned to the authors by the Administrative Staff for correction prior to any editorial evaluation.

2. Initial Evaluation and Similarity Screening (Desk Review)

Manuscripts that clear the administrative check are forwarded to the Managing Editor for workflow routing and to the Editor for an initial scholarly assessment. The Editor evaluates the manuscript’s alignment with the journal's focus on broader discourses in Islamic studies and social sciences, particularly emphasizing their intersections with historical and civilizational dynamics. Manuscripts lacking scholarly relevance, conceptual clarity, or failing to engage with the appropriate academic literature are subject to desk rejection at this stage. This initial desk decision is typically completed within 2 weeks.

Concurrently, the Editor, supported by the Managing Editor and Administrative Staff, subjects all submissions to similarity screening using iThenticate by Turnitin. The journal analyzes not only the numerical similarity index but also the nature of the overlap, accuracy of attribution, and the context of quotations. The journal maintains a strict policy against plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, and the undisclosed use of AI-generated content. For further details on this procedure, please refer to the Plagiarism Screening Policy | Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization . Manuscripts passing this phase are subsequently assigned by the Editor for peer review management.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

The assigned Editor is responsible for identifying and appointing at least two independent Reviewers possessing specific subject expertise relevant to the manuscript. Reviewer selection is based on academic competence, publication trajectory, and an absence of competing interests. The Editor ensures that selected Reviewers are well-versed in the methodological frameworks pertinent to Islamic studies, social sciences, history, and civilization. The process of assigning reviewers and issuing the first notification requires approximately 2 weeks.

To uphold the integrity of the double-blind process, the Managing Editor and Administrative Staff ensure that all identifying metadata and author references are removed from the manuscript files before the Editor dispatches them to the Reviewers. Reviewers must explicitly accept the invitation, confirm their availability, and declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to accessing the manuscript.

4. Peer Review Process and Scholarly Responsibilities

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, analytical depth, methodological soundness, interpretive clarity, and substantial contribution to the academic fields of social sciences, Islamic studies, and civilizational history. The peer review process is conducted within approximately 3 weeks, depending on reviewer availability. Reviewers critically assess the quality of argumentation, the reliability of primary and secondary sources, the handling of historical contexts, and the manuscript's engagement with ongoing scholarly debates.

Feedback must be objective, evidence-based, and articulated constructively to aid the authors in enhancing their scholarly output to meet the highest standard publications criteria. Hostile language, personal criticisms, or unsubstantiated judgments are strictly prohibited. Reviewers operate under strict confidentiality protocols and are forbidden from utilizing submitted materials for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage.

5. Editorial Decision-Making

Upon receipt of the Reviewer reports, the Editor synthesizes the feedback and formulates an editorial recommendation. This recommendation is then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who holds the ultimate authority to make the final decision. The Managing Editor facilitates the communication of these decisions to ensure procedural efficiency. Decisions are categorized into:

• Accepted as is: The manuscript meets all standards without further modification.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight structural, factual, or formatting adjustments.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial re-writing, re-analysis, or methodological correction.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript shows potential but requires fundamental reworking and a new round of peer review.
• Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s stringent requirements for the highest standard publications regarding quality, originality, or scope.

Editorial decisions are insulated from any external influences, commercial interests, or institutional pressures, relying solely on academic merit to consistently produce the highest standard publications.

Phase 2: Post-Decision Pathways

Following the final editorial decision, the manuscript will proceed into one of the designated pathways below, ensuring a structured process for revisions, rejections, or final publication.

Pathway A: Author Revision and Resubmission

Authors directed to revise their work must submit the updated manuscript alongside a comprehensive "Response to Reviewers" document. This document must systematically address each point raised by the Reviewers and the Editor. Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within approximately 3 weeks after receiving reviewer comments. Delays in revision submission may affect the overall publication timeline. The Managing Editor monitors the submission of revisions to ensure timely compliance.

The assigned Editor reviews the revised manuscript to verify that all concerns have been adequately addressed. In cases of major revisions, the Editor may elect to send the revised manuscript back to the original Reviewers for a second round of evaluation. Failure to address reviewer comments constructively or within the stipulated timeframe may result in the rescission of an acceptance offer.

Pathway B: Rejection Process

If the editorial decision is to reject the manuscript at any stage, either during the initial desk review or following the peer review evaluation, the workflow concludes immediately. Authors are formally notified by the Managing Editor regarding the academic rationale behind the decision. This prompt closure provides authors the necessary freedom to submit their work to other suitable publication venues without administrative delay.

Pathway C: Post-Acceptance Process

The journal operates on a transparent post-acceptance Article Processing Charge (APC) framework. No fees are exacted during the submission, initial screening, or peer review phases. APC obligations are triggered exclusively upon the formal issuance of an acceptance letter by the Editor-in-Chief. The Administrative Staff handles the invoicing process and provides secure payment instructions. The administrative process related to APCs is typically finalized within 1 week.

Revenues generated from APCs are allocated to cover the costs associated with editorial management systems, professional copyediting, DOI registration, metadata distribution, digital preservation, and long-term open-access infrastructure.

Following acceptance and APC settlement, the manuscript enters the production phase, centrally coordinated by the Managing Editor and executed by the Administrative Staff. This production process, including copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading, is completed within 2 weeks. Authors are provided with galley proofs to review and approve the final typeset document.

During the proofing stage, authors are permitted only to correct typographical errors or minor factual discrepancies. Substantive alterations to the text or data are strictly prohibited. Upon final author approval and clearance by the Managing Editor, the Administrative Staff finalize DOI assignment, metadata integration, and schedule the manuscript for formal online publication.

Peer Review Integrity and Ethical Oversight

Senarai is committed to maintaining ethical, transparent, and accountable peer review practices. The journal integrates ethical oversight across all tiers of manuscript processing, from the initial desk review by the Editor to the final publication decision by the Editor-in-Chief.

1. Absolute Confidentiality

All submitted materials, editorial correspondence, peer review reports, and internal deliberations are classified as confidential. The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewers, and Administrative Staff are contractually and ethically bound to prevent unauthorized disclosure of manuscript content. Any breach of confidentiality constitutes academic misconduct and will result in removal from the journal's editorial board or reviewer pool.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality

Evaluations must be rooted in scholarly merit. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, institutional affiliation, or political ideology is strictly prohibited. The Editor monitors reviewer reports to ensure language remains professional, objective, and solely focused on elevating the academic quality of the manuscript to meet the highest standard publications.

3. Procedural Timeliness

The journal recognizes the importance of prompt scholarly communication. While speed is optimized through the operational oversight of the Managing Editor, it is balanced with analytical rigor and ethical scrutiny. Reviewers and the Editor are expected to adhere to standardized turnaround times and proactively communicate any unavoidable delays to the Managing Editor or Administrative Staff.

4. Transparency and Accountability

Every editorial action, communication, and decision is logged within the journal’s digital management system. This ensures a transparent audit trail, maintaining accountability at all levels. In the event of post-publication disputes, the Editor-in-Chief relies on these records to issue objective corrections, clarifications, or, if necessary, retractions.

5. Management of Conflicts of Interest

All stakeholders, including the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, and Reviewers, must proactively disclose any financial, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationships that could compromise impartiality. Individuals with identified conflicts are recused from handling or evaluating the manuscript in question.

6. Adherence to Research Ethics

The journal employs screening protocols coordinated by the Editor and supported by the Managing Editor and Administrative Staff to detect plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication, and the unethical use of artificial intelligence. Allegations of misconduct undergo a structured investigation led by the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring fair and due process for all parties involved.

7. Recognition of Peer Reviewers

The journal formally acknowledges the intellectual labor provided by its Reviewers. The standards of scholarship published in the journal rely heavily on their voluntary expertise. The Managing Editor and Administrative Staff maintain records of reviewer contributions to facilitate formal recognition, ensuring that their efforts in maintaining academic rigor are adequately appreciated.

Through these structured policies and distributed roles, Senarai supports a reliable peer review ecosystem that is analytically sound, ethical, and committed to advancing interdisciplinary discourses by continuously delivering the highest standard publications in Islamic studies, social sciences, history, and civilization.