Peer Review Process

LIQHA: Journal of Living Qur'an and Hadith is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity and quality in every published article. Therefore, every manuscript submitted to this journal will undergo a rigorous evaluation process using a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

In this system, the author's identity is concealed from the reviewers, and conversely, the reviewers' identities are kept confidential from the author. This aims to ensure an objective, fair, and bias-free assessment.

Below are the stages of the manuscript review process at LIQHA: Journal of Living Qur'an and Hadith:

1. Initial Screening (Desk Review)

Every manuscript submitted through the OJS system will first be evaluated by the Editorial Board. This initial screening includes:

  • Scope Suitability: Ensuring the article aligns with the journal's focus on textual studies, Tafsir, and Qur'an and Hadith studies.

  • Format Compliance: Checking the manuscript's conformity with the Author Guidelines and the journal's Template.

  • Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts will be scanned using anti-plagiarism software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate). Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding the journal's tolerance limit (e.g., >20%) will be immediately rejected or returned to the author for revision.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening stage will be assigned to a minimum of two (2) independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the article's topic. The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research findings.

  • The sharpness of the problem analysis through the lens of Qur'anic and Hadith studies, including its relevance to societal issues.

  • Validity and reliability of the methodology used.

  • Clarity in the presentation of results and depth of the discussion.

  • Quality and relevance of the bibliography.

The time provided to reviewers to complete the manuscript evaluation generally ranges from 2 to 4 weeks.

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the evaluation results, reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication without the need for revisions.

  • Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript requires slight modifications according to the reviewers' notes before it can be published.

  • Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The manuscript requires substantial revisions and must be re-evaluated by the reviewers after the author makes the necessary corrections.

  • Decline Submission (Rejected): The manuscript is deemed not to meet the scientific quality standards of the journal or contains fatal flaws in its methodology.

4. Final Decision

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection (Accept/Reject) of a manuscript rests entirely with the Editor in Chief, who considers the recommendations and comments from the reviewers. Notification of the final decision, along with revision notes from the reviewers, will be sent to the corresponding author via the OJS system and email.

5. Author Revision

If a manuscript requires improvements, the author is given a specific timeframe (generally 2–4 weeks) to revise the manuscript according to the input from the reviewers and editor. The author must re-upload the revised version along with a response to the reviewers' notes via the OJS dashboard.