Peer Review Process
TIME Journal: Transformation of Islamic Management and Education employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of all published articles. Under this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process, thereby promoting fairness, impartiality, and objective academic assessment.
Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a comprehensive editorial and peer-review process to evaluate its scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
The Peer Review Workflow
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors must submit their manuscripts through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines, formatting requirements, ethical standards, and submission policies.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic publication requirements. The evaluation includes:
Ø Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
Ø Compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines;
Ø Completeness of submission files and metadata;
Ø General academic quality and clarity;
Ø Compliance with publication ethics.
All manuscripts are also screened using plagiarism detection software before entering the peer-review stage. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's standards may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) without external review.
3. Editorial Assignment
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor or a member of the Editorial Board with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Editors must disclose and avoid any conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified editor.
4. Reviewer Selection
The Handling Editor appoints at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant field.
Reviewers are selected based on several criteria, including:
Ø Academic qualifications and subject expertise;
Ø Research and publication record;
Ø Previous peer-review experience;
Ø Absence of conflicts of interest.
All reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
Each manuscript is independently evaluated by the assigned reviewers according to the following criteria:
Ø Originality and novelty;
Ø Significance and scholarly contribution;
Ø Clarity of research objectives and questions;
Ø Soundness of research methodology;
Ø Validity and reliability of data analysis;
Ø Quality of discussion and interpretation;
Ø Adequacy and relevance of references;
Ø Organization, clarity, and academic writing quality;
Ø Compliance with research and publication ethics;
Ø Overall suitability for publication.
Following the review, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
ü Accept
ü Minor Revision
ü Major Revision
ü Reject
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
6. Editorial Decision
The Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final publication decision.
Possible editorial decisions include:
ü Accept without Revision
ü Minor Revision
ü Major Revision
ü Reject
If reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor may appoint an additional independent reviewer to assist in reaching a fair and informed decision.
7. Author Revision
Authors receiving revision requests are expected to revise their manuscripts within the specified timeframe.
Revised submissions must include:
Ø A revised manuscript with tracked or highlighted changes (if requested); and
Ø A detailed Response to Reviewers, explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
8. Final Editorial Assessment
After the revised manuscript is received, the Handling Editor performs a final assessment to ensure that:
Ø All reviewer comments have been adequately addressed;
Ø The manuscript meets the journal's quality standards;
Ø Formatting and referencing comply with journal requirements;
Ø Language quality is suitable for publication.
A second similarity check may be conducted when deemed necessary.
9. Copyediting and Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts proceed to professional editorial production, including:
Ø Copyediting;
Ø Language editing (where applicable);
Ø Layout editing and typesetting;
Ø Proofreading.
The corresponding author will receive page proofs for final approval before publication.
10. Publication
After final approval, accepted articles are scheduled for publication in either the June or December issue of the journal.
All published articles are made available through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform in accordance with the journal's Open Access Policy.
Principles of Peer Review
TIME Journal upholds the following principles throughout the peer-review process:
1. Double-Blind Review, ensuring reviewer and author anonymity.
2. Objectivity, whereby manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit.
3. Confidentiality, ensuring that all submitted materials remain strictly confidential.
4. Editorial Independence, with editorial decisions made free from external influence.
5. Constructive Evaluation, providing clear, professional, and evidence-based feedback.
6. Fairness and Equity, ensuring impartial treatment of all submissions regardless of authors' nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.
7. Timeliness, striving to complete the review process efficiently while maintaining high academic standards.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. Individuals with conflicts of interest must decline involvement in the editorial or review process.
Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, financial interests, research collaborations, or professional competition.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to TIME Journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not:
1. Disclose manuscript content to unauthorized individuals;
2. Use unpublished data or ideas for personal research or benefit;
3. Share or reproduce manuscript materials without the explicit permission of the journal.
Estimated Review Timeline
TIME Journal is committed to providing an efficient and transparent editorial process. The estimated processing time is as follows:
Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 10-15 days
Reviewer Invitation and Assignment 12-20 days
Double-Blind Peer Review 1-2 month
Author Revision 1-3 weeks
Final Editorial Decision 5-10 days
Copyediting and Proofreading 1-2 weeks
Publication June or December Issue
Please note that the review timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the quality and timeliness of the authors' revisions.
Commitment to Ethical and High-Quality Peer Review
TIME Journal is fully committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is fair, transparent, confidential, independent, and academically rigorous. The journal adheres to internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, to ensure that every published article meets the highest standards of scientific quality, research integrity, and ethical publishing.
