Peer Review Process

At Rizq: Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality and integrity. All manuscripts submitted to our journal undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure that only original, valid, and significant research is published. Our peer review process is designed to be fair, transparent, and constructive, in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and Islamic principles of 'adl (justice) and ihsan (excellence).

The following outlines the peer review process for Rizq: Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance:

1. Initial Submission and Pre-Screening

When an author submits a manuscript through our Open Journal System (OJS), the following steps occur:

• Technical check: The editorial assistant verifies that the manuscript adheres to the journal's formatting guidelines, including word limit, citation style, and structure.
• Plagiarism screening: All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate). Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% (with no single source above 5%) are returned to the author for revision or rejected outright.
• Scope and relevance check: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript to ensure it falls within the journal's focus and scope (Rizq: Islamic economics and finance, with emphasis on the concept of rizq, maslahah, and ethical finance).
• Desk rejection: Manuscripts that are clearly outside the scope, lack scientific rigor, or violate ethical standards are rejected without further review. Authors are notified within 7 days of submission.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

Once a manuscript passes the initial pre-screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor – a member of the Editorial Board with expertise in the relevant area (e.g., Islamic banking, zakat and waqf, behavioral Islamic economics, etc.). The Handling Editor is responsible for:

• Selecting appropriate reviewers
• Monitoring the review timeline
• Making a preliminary recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief

3. Reviewer Selection

The Handling Editor identifies two to three independent reviewers based on the following criteria:

• Expertise in the manuscript's subject area
• No conflict of interest with the authors (e.g., recent collaboration, same institution, personal relationship)
• Availability to complete the review within the designated time
• Geographic and institutional diversity (to avoid bias)

Reviewers are selected from our internal database of qualified reviewers, as well as from external experts identified through Scopus or Google Scholar. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the Handling Editor is not obligated to use them. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific reviewers, provided a legitimate reason is given.

4. Invitation and Agreement

Potential reviewers receive an email invitation containing:

• The manuscript title and abstract
• The deadline for review (typically 14 days from acceptance)
• A brief explanation of the journal's peer review policy

Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation. If a reviewer declines or does not respond within 5 days, the Handling Editor invites an alternative reviewer.

5. Conducting the Review

Rizq employs a double-blind peer review model. This means:

• The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This model ensures that the review is based solely on the scientific merit of the work, free from bias related to author affiliation, nationality, gender, or reputation.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

Criterion	Questions to Consider
Originality	Does the manuscript present new ideas, findings, or perspectives? Is it sufficiently different from existing literature?
Significance	Does the research contribute meaningfully to Islamic economics and finance? Does it advance the concept of rizq or maslahah?
Methodological rigor	Are the research methods appropriate, clearly described, and properly executed? Are the data reliable and valid?
Clarity and structure	Is the manuscript well-written, logically organized, and free of grammatical errors?
Sharia compliance (if applicable)	For Sharia-related claims, are the arguments based on sound Islamic legal principles (usul fiqh) and reputable sources?
References	Are the citations relevant, up-to-date, and properly formatted?

Reviewers are also asked to provide a confidential comment to the editor (regarding overall recommendation, strengths, weaknesses, and any ethical concerns) and comments to the authors (constructive feedback for improvement).

6. Review Recommendation

Reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations:

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept as is	The manuscript is ready for publication without any changes. (Very rare)
Accept with minor revisions	The manuscript requires small corrections (e.g., typos, missing references, clarification of a single point).
Major revisions required	The manuscript has significant flaws that need to be addressed (e.g., additional analysis, rewriting a section, addressing methodological concerns). The revised version will be sent back to reviewers.
Reject	The manuscript has fatal flaws (e.g., no scientific contribution, methodological errors, plagiarism, out of scope).

7. Editorial Decision

Once at least two reviewer reports have been received, the Handling Editor evaluates the recommendations and makes a preliminary decision. This decision is then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval.

The possible final decisions are:

Decision	Description	Next Step
Reject	Manuscript is not suitable for publication.	Author notified with reviewer comments. No resubmission allowed unless major revision is invited.
Major revisions required	Manuscript needs substantial changes.	Author has up to 4 weeks to revise and resubmit. Revised version undergoes a second round of review (often by the same reviewers).
Minor revisions required	Manuscript needs small corrections.	Author has up to 2 weeks to revise. The Handling Editor checks the revisions (no need for full re-review).
Accept	Manuscript is approved for publication.	The manuscript moves to the production stage.

The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. However, authors may submit an appeal if they believe the decision was based on factual error or bias (see Appeals section below).

8. Revision and Resubmission

When a revision is requested, authors must:

• Submit the revised manuscript (with changes clearly marked using "Track Changes" or colored text).
• Submit a response to reviewers letter that:
• Addresses each reviewer comment point by point
• Explains what changes were made (with page and line numbers)
• Provides a polite and scholarly justification if a comment is rejected

Failure to provide a response letter or ignoring reviewer comments may result in rejection, even if the substantive revisions are adequate.

9. Second Round of Review (If Applicable)

For manuscripts that required major revisions, the revised version is sent back to the original reviewers (or new reviewers if the original are unavailable). The second-round reviewers evaluate:

• Whether all concerns have been adequately addressed
• Whether any new issues have emerged

The reviewer may then recommend accept, further minor revisions, or reject (if the revisions are insufficient).

10. Final Acceptance and Production

Once a manuscript is accepted:

• The author receives a formal acceptance letter.
• The manuscript is sent to the copyediting and typesetting team.
• The author reviews the proof (PDF of the final typeset article) within 3-5 days.
• After proof approval, the article is published online as an "Article in Press" and later assigned to a specific volume and issue.