Peer Review Process

The Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy (JOVISHE), published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), operates a double-anonymous, pre-publication peer-review process for scholarly manuscripts within its stated Focus and Scope. Each manuscript that advances beyond editorial screening is evaluated by at least two qualified, independent subject specialists. When additional expertise or clarification is needed, the handling editor may invite a third reviewer. The reviewers provide evidence-based recommendations; the Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final editorial decision, with advice from the Associate Editors where appropriate.

*Indicative time allowed for a reviewer to complete a report after accepting an invitation; not a guaranteed time to editorial decision or publication.

The review process is intended to assess the originality, validity, methodological rigour, interpretive quality, and disciplinary relevance of submitted research. JOVISHE considers original research, rigorous review studies, conceptual and theoretical contributions, and applied innovation or design-based research, as defined in its Manuscript Types policy. Studies of digital systems and entrepreneurship must demonstrate a substantive contribution to the journal's Islamic economic, ethical business, financial, or development remit.

Manuscripts may be prepared in academic English or Indonesian in accordance with the current Author Guidelines. Language proficiency is assessed for scholarly clarity; decisions are not made on the basis of an author's nationality, institutional standing, religion, gender, or ability to pay. Initial screening may result in a desk rejection without external peer review; this decision does not imply that external review has taken place.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject-matter expertise, relevant scholarly work, methodological competence, independence, and capacity to complete the assessment responsibly. The reviewer panel is institutionally distinct from the Editorial Team. Reviewers should disclose recent collaborations, supervisory relationships, shared institutional affiliations, financial interests, close personal relationships, or other circumstances that may compromise impartiality. A conflicted or insufficiently qualified reviewer must decline the invitation or seek guidance from the handling editor.

The journal seeks reviewers from diverse institutions and, when appropriate to the subject, different countries, while prioritising the ability to deliver a technically sound assessment. Authors may identify potential expertise when requested, but suggested reviewers are not automatically selected; all assignments are subject to independent editorial verification. Reviewer identities and manuscript-to-reviewer assignments remain confidential within the editorial workflow.

Under JOVISHE's double-anonymous model, the identity of the authors is withheld from the reviewers, and the reviewers' identities are withheld from the authors during evaluation. The handling editors may access the identities required for editorial administration and conflict-of-interest checks. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements that disclose identity, personal document metadata, and other identifying information from the review manuscript while retaining the complete author record in the designated OJS metadata fields.

All unpublished manuscripts, datasets, supplementary files, correspondence, review reports, and editorial deliberations must be treated as confidential. A reviewer must not share the manuscript with unauthorised individuals, exploit unpublished ideas, or contact authors directly about the review. Review reports are ordinarily communicated privately through OJS rather than publicly attached to the published article. The publicly accessible reviewer directory does not disclose which reviewer assessed any particular manuscript.

Supplementary materials essential to evaluating the methodology, findings, or interpretation may be supplied to reviewers under the same confidentiality safeguards. Editors may request access to underlying data, instruments, ethics documentation, or other supporting evidence when necessary for an informed assessment.

Reviewers are asked to provide reasoned, evidence-based comments on the following dimensions rather than relying on a numerical score or a similarity percentage alone.

For review articles, reviewers additionally examine the transparency of the literature search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis processes. For conceptual articles, they assess the coherence, critical depth, and novelty of the argument. For applied innovation and design-based studies, they examine the adequacy of evaluation and the demonstrated economic or institutional contribution; merely documenting a software implementation does not constitute sufficient scholarly evidence.

JOVISHE conducts editorial checks for originality and text overlap, including the use of Turnitin where available. Similarity reports are interpreted contextually, with attention to correctly attributed quotations, references, conventional terminology, prior dissemination, and potentially unattributed duplication. No single similarity score, by itself, establishes or rules out plagiarism. Editors may request explanations, source documents, or corrections and may reject manuscripts when serious ethical concerns are substantiated.

Concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, redundant publication, manipulated images, inappropriate citations, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or compromised peer review are handled through an evidence-based editorial inquiry consistent with the journal's ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance. Where necessary, the editorial office may seek clarification from the authors or their institutions.

JOVISHE uses the following standard working targets to support predictable communication while preserving reviewers' ability to carry out an appropriately rigorous evaluation. Actual handling time may vary with manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for additional expert assessment, and the responsiveness of authors.

These are indicative editorial targets, not guaranteed deadlines for acceptance, first decision, or publication. The deadline confirmed in each OJS invitation or editorial decision takes precedence; reasonable extensions may be granted upon request.

Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a structured, point-by-point response to reviewers, explaining precisely how each comment was addressed and, where a recommendation was not adopted, providing a courteous, reasoned justification. Substantial revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or to additional experts. If the review process is delayed, the editorial office should inform the corresponding author and provide an updated status through the journal system.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The handling editor assesses their substance, considers any substantial disagreement, and may seek further review. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision, consulting appropriately qualified colleagues as needed. Manuscripts submitted by an editor, board member, or other person with a potential institutional or personal conflict must be managed by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict; the interested person must not control the review or decision.

Reviewers and editors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling a manuscript when impartiality cannot reasonably be ensured. Reviewers must report suspected unethical conduct discreetly to the editor and must not investigate authors independently or use confidential findings for personal advantage. Review reports should be respectful, specific, constructive, and supported by scholarly reasoning.

Financial and editorial independence. Author fees, fee waivers, funding sources, institutional relationships, and sponsorship arrangements must not affect reviewer selection, the content of review reports, or editorial decisions. JOVISHE does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication in exchange for payment or offer an editorial outcome contingent on payment. Charges, where applicable, are governed by the separate Author Fees policy.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involved a material factual error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed competing interest, or relevant new evidence may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial contact. The appeal should identify the manuscript and provide specific supporting information. Where practicable, an editor who was not involved in the original decision should examine the appeal. An appeal does not itself guarantee reversal of a decision or a new review round.

Complaints about reviewer conduct, suspected manipulation, confidentiality breaches, or research integrity are assessed proportionately and, when appropriate, under the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct procedures. Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for a suitable forthcoming issue after copyediting, proofing, and metadata checks. Acceptance does not confer an entitlement to placement in a specific issue, and no publication or editorial workflow dates may be retrospectively fabricated or altered to create a preferred chronology.

JOVISHE documents manuscript handling within Open Journal Systems (OJS). Retained editorial records should include actual submission and assignment dates, reviewer invitations and responses, reviewer reports, review rounds, revision requests and responses, decision letters, acceptance dates, and publication metadata. Reviewer assessments should demonstrate engagement with the manuscript's scholarly content, not merely language or page-layout checks. Access to confidential records is limited to authorised personnel and legitimate audit or integrity procedures.

The article history published with each paper should reflect verifiable editorial events, including the actual receipt, acceptance, and publication dates as recorded by the journal. The editorial office must not modify records merely to fit the nominal June or December issue period. All peer-reviewed manuscript categories are subject to the same requirements for editorial independence; any explicitly declared exception must be disclosed to readers.

Authors and reviewers should consult the following policies before participating in the submission and assessment process.

Policy guidance:

JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy · Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia