Peer Review Process
HURMAH: Islamic Journal of Human Rights is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted for publication is subject to a rigorous peer-review process. This evaluation, conducted by two or more experts of similar competence to the author, aims to determine the academic paper's suitability, quality, and credibility for publication. The peer review at HURMAH Journal proceeds in 9 detailed steps as follows:
- Submission of Manuscript
The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal via the online submission system supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS). To ensure accessibility, the editorial office may also temporarily accept submissions via email.
- Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office. The editor evaluates its suitability relative to the journal's focus and scope and checks its composition against the Author Guidelines. An initial appraisal of the manuscript's quality and methodological soundness is conducted. Manuscripts that pass this stage are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software to ensure originality before proceeding to the review stage.
- Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, and has significant scholarly value. Manuscripts that fail to meet these fundamental criteria may be rejected without further external review.
- Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends review invitations to potential reviewers selected for their expertise in Indigenous studies, educational leadership, and related fields, taking into account the alignment of their research interests and the absence of conflicts of interest. The review community consists of qualified experts capable of impartial judgment. Impartiality is ensured through a double-blind process where both the author's and reviewer's identities are concealed from each other.
- Response to Invitations
Invited reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or declining. If declining, they may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
- Review is Conducted
Reviewers read the manuscript multiple times to form a comprehensive evaluation. An initial reading provides a first impression; if major flaws are detected, the reviewer may recommend rejection. Otherwise, they perform a detailed, point-by-point analysis. The reviewer then submits a formal assessment to the journal, recommending acceptance, rejection, or revision (major or minor).
- Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all returned reviews to make an editorial decision. In cases of widely divergent reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further insight before a final decision is reached.
- The Decision is Communicated
The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author via email, including all relevant anonymized reviewer comments to guide necessary revisions. Reviewers are also notified of the final decision regarding the manuscript they assessed.
- Final Steps
If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production. If rejected or sent for revision, the editor provides the author with the reviewers' constructive feedback. The author must revise the manuscript accordingly and resubmit it by the deadline. Revised manuscripts are typically sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, unless the revisions are minor, in which case the handling editor may assess them. Once the editor is satisfied with the final version, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication. All accepted articles are published online as freely downloadable PDF files under the journal's Open Access policy.
