Parewa Saraq: Journal of Islamic Law and Fatwa Review is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, integrity, transparency, and publication ethics. The journal implements a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated objectively, independently, and fairly.

All submitted manuscripts undergo Editor-in-Chief screening and peer review before a final publication decision is made. The peer review process applies to all research articles submitted to the journal.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially examined by the Editor-in-Chief to assess its compliance with the journal's focus and scope, submission guidelines, academic standards, and publication ethics.

The initial screening includes:

1. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope, particularly Islamic law, contemporary fatwa studies, comparative Islamic law, and related socio-legal issues.
2. Compliance with the journal's manuscript preparation and submission guidelines.
3. Originality, academic contribution, and relevance to contemporary scholarly discussions.
4. Appropriate research methodology and academic writing quality.
5. Preliminary similarity screening using plagiarism detection software.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief may also request preliminary revisions before proceeding to the next stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to an editor responsible for managing the peer review process.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least three independent reviewers who have relevant academic expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which:

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
• Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and relevant scholarly publications.
• Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

The editorial team ensures that reviewers are independent of the authors and have no personal, professional, institutional, or financial conflicts that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluations.

If the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer to obtain further independent assessment.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and Contribution: The manuscript presents an original scholarly contribution to Islamic law, fatwa studies, or related fields.
2. Relevance and Scope: The manuscript is relevant to the journal's focus and scope.
3. Research Questions and Objectives: The research questions and objectives are clearly formulated.
4. Literature Review: The manuscript demonstrates sufficient engagement with relevant scholarly literature and identifies the research gap.
5. Methodological Rigor: The research methodology is appropriate, clearly explained, and consistently applied.
6. Analytical Depth: The discussion demonstrates critical analysis, particularly in interpreting Islamic legal sources, fatwas, legal doctrines, and empirical findings.
7. Academic References: The manuscript uses relevant, credible, and up-to-date scholarly references.
8. Clarity and Organization: The manuscript is logically structured and written in clear academic English.
9. Research Ethics: The manuscript complies with applicable research ethics and publication integrity standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and specific recommendations to improve the manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the assigned editor or Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's academic quality, and the journal's publication standards.

The possible editorial decisions are:

1. Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions. Minor editorial or formatting adjustments may still be required.

2. Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions to address specific comments from reviewers and/or editors. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor without necessarily being returned to the reviewers.

3. Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions concerning its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, discussion, or academic contribution. The revised manuscript will generally be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

4. Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form but may be reconsidered as a new submission if the authors substantially reconstruct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editors' recommendations. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.

5. Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication because it does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements. Rejected manuscripts will not be reconsidered in their existing form.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor.

Authors are required to:

1. Revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editors' comments.
2. Highlight or clearly indicate all changes made in the revised manuscript.
3. Provide a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
4. Provide a reasoned explanation when a recommendation cannot be adopted.

The editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers or additional reviewers when further academic assessment is necessary.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified period without prior communication may result in the closure of the submission.

6. Final Editorial Assessment

After the revision process, the editor evaluates whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments and fulfilled the journal's publication requirements.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer recommendations serve as important academic considerations but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if substantial concerns regarding academic quality, research integrity, or publication ethics arise.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and publication ethics.

Reviewers must:

• Treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
• Refrain from using discriminatory, offensive, or inappropriate language in their evaluations.

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of the review process, protect the independence of reviewers, and ensure that editorial decisions are based on academic merit and ethical considerations rather than personal, institutional, political, or commercial interests.

Any suspected research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or inappropriate authorship, will be handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and relevant COPE guidelines.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a formal appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office, accompanied by clear academic justification and supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor not directly involved in the original decision, will assess the appeal. Where necessary, an independent academic opinion may be sought.

The journal also provides a mechanism for receiving complaints concerning the editorial process, reviewer conduct, or alleged breaches of publication ethics. All complaints will be handled confidentially, fairly, and in accordance with the journal's ethical policies.

9. Peer Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct the peer review process efficiently while maintaining academic rigor and reviewer independence.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

Authors can monitor the progress of their submissions through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review period, as the quality and integrity of the evaluation process take priority over publication speed.

10. Publication Decision and Production

Manuscripts that receive final acceptance proceed to the copyediting, proofreading, and production stages.

The accepted manuscript will undergo editorial and technical preparation to ensure compliance with the journal's publication standards.

Authors will be given the opportunity to check the galley proof before publication. Any corrections at this stage should be limited to typographical errors and essential factual or production-related adjustments.

The final publication decision and subsequent production process are the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.