Peer Review Process

Indonesian Journal of Islamic Counseling (IJIC) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality, credibility, and integrity of every published article. Each manuscript submitted is independently evaluated by two or more experts in the relevant field.

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Submission of Manuscript

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system powered by the Open Journal System (OJS). For convenience, IJIC also temporarily accepts submissions via email.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office reviews the submission to verify its alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, adherence to the Author Guidelines, and general academic quality. Manuscripts that meet the initial criteria are then screened for plagiarism using Turnitin before proceeding to the peer review process.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and contribution to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.

4. Reviewer Invitation

Qualified reviewers with expertise in the subject area are invited to evaluate the manuscript. The double-blind process ensures that both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

5. Response to Reviewer Invitations

Invited reviewers assess the manuscript's fit with their expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. They may accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers who decline are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

6. Conducting the Review

Accepted reviewers evaluate the manuscript thoroughly, identifying major and minor issues. Based on their assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Detailed and constructive feedback is provided to assist authors in improving their work.

7. Evaluation of Review Reports

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor review all reviewer comments. If there is a discrepancy in reviewer recommendations, an additional reviewer may be assigned to provide a third opinion.

8. Editorial Decision and Communication

Based on the reviewers’ feedback and their own evaluation, the editor makes a decision and communicates it to the author. Reviewer comments are shared anonymously. Reviewers are also informed about the outcome of the manuscript.

9. Final Steps

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo copy-editing and layout preparation before publication.

  • Revisions: Authors are required to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewer and editor suggestions and resubmit them. Revised manuscripts are reassessed either by the original reviewers or the editorial team, depending on the nature of the revisions.

  • Once revisions satisfy the editorial requirements, the manuscript is formally accepted and published online, available for open access download in PDF format.