Peer Review Process

Qaulan: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Penyiaran Islam applies a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript considered for publication.

The peer-review process is designed to provide authors with constructive academic feedback while maintaining fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence.

The review process generally follows the stages below:

Submission → Initial Screening → Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Review → Revision → Final Decision → Copyediting → Publication

1. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

At the time of submission, authors are required to ensure that:

  • The manuscript fits the journal's Focus and Scope.
  • The manuscript is original and has not been published elsewhere.
  • The manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
  • The manuscript follows the journal's Author Guidelines.
  • All authors have approved the submitted version.
  • Author affiliations and contact information are complete.
  • ORCID information is provided where available.
  • Ethical requirements have been addressed where applicable.
  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed.
  • Funding information is provided where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors before entering the review process.

2. INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

After submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team.

The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The editorial team evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and apparent scholarly contribution
  • Compliance with the journal's author guidelines
  • Basic academic and methodological quality
  • Manuscript completeness
  • Language and presentation
  • Citation and reference quality
  • Potential plagiarism or publication misconduct
  • Compliance with research ethics where applicable

At this stage, manuscripts may be desk rejected if they are clearly outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential academic requirements, demonstrate serious methodological problems, or violate publication ethics.

A manuscript passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

3. EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

The editor determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently suitable for external peer review.

The assessment considers:

  • Research relevance
  • Research originality
  • Research question or objective
  • Theoretical foundation
  • Methodological appropriateness
  • Potential contribution to the field
  • Overall academic quality

The editor may request preliminary revisions before the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

4. REVIEWER SELECTION

Suitable reviewers are selected based on their:

  • Academic expertise
  • Research specialization
  • Publication record
  • Knowledge of the manuscript's subject area
  • Experience in scholarly peer review

The editorial team attempts to select reviewers who can provide an independent and objective assessment.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

5. DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Qaulan uses a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewer reports are handled confidentially.
  • Manuscripts are evaluated independently.

Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript does not unnecessarily reveal their identities, particularly in the manuscript file used for peer review.

The editorial team may remove identifying information when necessary to preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process.

6. REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on academic and scholarly criteria, including:

Relevance

Does the manuscript fit the focus and scope of Qaulan?

Originality

Does the manuscript present original research, arguments, perspectives, or findings?

Novelty

Does the study provide a meaningful contribution beyond existing research?

Theoretical Foundation

Are relevant theories and scholarly literature appropriately used?

Methodology

Is the research methodology appropriate, rigorous, and sufficiently explained?

Results

Are the findings clearly presented and supported by the research?

Discussion

Does the manuscript critically interpret its findings and connect them with previous scholarship?

Conclusion

Does the conclusion appropriately answer the research objectives?

References

Are the references relevant, adequate, current, and properly cited?

Academic Writing

Is the manuscript coherent, clear, and professionally written?

Research Ethics

Does the study comply with relevant ethical standards?

7. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

After completing the review, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor.

The possible recommendations are:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally acceptable but requires limited corrections or improvements.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial revision.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires significant improvement and may be considered as a new submission after substantial revision.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental academic, methodological, ethical, or relevance problems that prevent publication.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

8. REVIEWER REPORTS

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and evidence-based comments.

Reviewer comments should address both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Reviewers may comment on:

  • Research objectives
  • Research gap
  • Literature review
  • Theoretical framework
  • Research methodology
  • Data analysis
  • Findings
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • References
  • Academic writing
  • Ethical considerations

Comments should be professional, respectful, and specific.

Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

9. EDITORIAL DECISION

After receiving reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript and reviewer recommendations.

The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript
  • Request minor revisions
  • Request major revisions
  • Reject and invite resubmission
  • Reject the manuscript

The editor may also request additional review when:

  • Reviewer recommendations significantly conflict.
  • Important methodological concerns remain unresolved.
  • Additional specialist expertise is required.
  • Ethical or academic integrity concerns arise.

10. REVISION PROCESS

When revisions are required, authors receive editorial and reviewer comments through the journal's online submission system.

Authors should:

  1. Carefully address each reviewer comment.
  2. Revise the manuscript accordingly.
  3. Provide a clear response to reviewers.
  4. Explain any comments that cannot reasonably be implemented.
  5. Highlight or clearly identify major changes where requested.
  6. Submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

A revision does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

11. SECOND-ROUND REVIEW

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

The second-round review may determine whether:

  • Reviewer comments have been adequately addressed.
  • Major methodological concerns have been resolved.
  • The manuscript has improved substantially.
  • New problems have emerged during revision.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the editor may make a final decision without another external review.

12. FINAL ACCEPTANCE

A manuscript is formally accepted when the editor determines that:

  • The manuscript meets the journal's academic standards.
  • Reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.
  • The manuscript fits the journal's scope.
  • The research demonstrates sufficient originality and contribution.
  • Ethical and publication requirements have been satisfied.

The acceptance decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's official system.

13. COPYEDITING AND PROOFREADING

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage.

This may include:

  • Language editing
  • Grammar correction
  • Formatting
  • Reference checking
  • Citation checking
  • Metadata preparation
  • DOI assignment
  • Layout preparation
  • Final proofreading

Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication.

Changes at the proof stage should generally be limited to correcting errors and ensuring publication accuracy.

14. PUBLICATION

After completing the production process, the article is published online as part of the appropriate journal issue.

Qaulan is published biannually, with publication issues generally scheduled for:

  • June
  • December

Published articles receive appropriate bibliographic metadata and DOI information when available.

Articles published by the journal become part of the permanent scholarly record.

15. CONFIDENTIALITY

All parties involved in the peer-review process are expected to maintain confidentiality.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Discuss manuscripts publicly.
  • Use unpublished research findings for personal purposes.
  • Copy substantial portions of manuscripts.
  • Reveal the identity of authors.
  • Upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized third-party platforms.

Editors must also protect confidential information relating to submissions, reviewers, and editorial decisions.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The journal requires reviewers and editors to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest may arise from:

  • Previous collaboration
  • Institutional relationships
  • Personal relationships
  • Academic competition
  • Financial interests
  • Professional interests
  • Direct involvement in closely related research

When a significant conflict exists, the reviewer or editor should withdraw from the evaluation process.

17. PLAGIARISM AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Manuscripts may undergo plagiarism or similarity screening before or during the editorial process.

Qaulan does not tolerate:

  • Plagiarism
  • Self-plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Fabrication
  • Falsification
  • Data manipulation
  • Citation manipulation
  • Improper authorship
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

If concerns about research misconduct arise, the editorial team may investigate the matter in accordance with applicable publication-ethics principles.

18. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The journal recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence in academic writing and research.

Authors remain responsible for:

  • The accuracy of their manuscripts.
  • The originality of their work.
  • Proper citation of sources.
  • Disclosure of relevant AI use where required.
  • Ensuring that AI-generated content does not introduce plagiarism, fabrication, or inaccurate information.

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality and should not upload unpublished manuscripts or substantial portions of manuscripts to external AI systems that may compromise confidentiality.

AI tools must not replace the independent scholarly judgment of reviewers or editors.

19. APPEALS

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made based on a significant factual or procedural error may submit an appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal should:

  • Be submitted by the corresponding author.
  • Clearly explain the reason for the appeal.
  • Identify specific factual or procedural concerns.
  • Provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

The editorial team will consider appeals objectively and may seek additional academic advice when necessary.

20. ESTIMATED REVIEW TIMELINE

The editorial team aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

The approximate workflow is:

Stage Approximate Process
Initial Screening 1–2 weeks
Reviewer Assignment 1–3 weeks
First Peer Review 2–4 weeks
Author Revision According to revision deadline
Second Review 1–3 weeks, when required
Final Editorial Decision 1–2 weeks
Copyediting & Production 1–3 weeks
Publication According to issue schedule

These timelines are estimates rather than guarantees and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.