Peer Review

1. Principles of Peer Review

The IFHAM International Journal of Halal Ecosystem Studies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated solely on the basis of scholarly merit, including originality, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field.

Editorial decisions are independent of authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, conference participation, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payment.

The journal recognises and values the essential contribution of its reviewers in ensuring the quality and credibility of published research.

 

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editor to assess:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Originality and relevance of the study
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards
  • Basic methodological and academic soundness

This initial assessment is normally completed within three (3 - 4) weeks.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they:

  • Fall outside the scope of the journal
  • Lack originality or scholarly contribution
  • Contain major methodological or conceptual flaws
  • Do not comply with submission or ethical requirements

Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria proceed to external peer review.

 

3. Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process.

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers
  •  Reviewer identities are concealed from authors 

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two to three independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary. 

The peer review process generally takes up to eight (8) weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

 

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Clarity of research objectives and identification of a relevant research gap
  • Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
  • Appropriateness and robustness of methodology
  • Ethical compliance, where applicable
  • Clarity and coherence of analysis, results, and discussion
  • Adequacy and accuracy of references to prior relevant literature

Reviewers provide constructive and scholarly feedback to support editorial decision-making.

Reviewers are not expected to provide language editing or copyediting, as linguistic revision is outside the scope of the peer review process.

 

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or handling Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit
  • Reject

Where necessary, the Editor may consult members of the Editorial Board before reaching a final decision.

The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, and all decisions are communicated to authors through the OJS system.

 

6. Review Rounds and Revisions

Manuscripts requiring revision may undergo one or more rounds of review, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions required.

Authors are expected to:

  • Address reviewers’ comments systematically
  • Submit a clear response to reviewers explaining how comments have been addressed

Failure to adequately respond to reviewer comments may result in rejection.

 

7. Becoming a Reviewer

Scholars and subject-matter experts who wish to be considered as reviewers for the journal are encouraged to:

  • Register as a reviewer through the journal’s OJS platform, or
  • Contact the Editorial Office with a brief academic profile and areas of expertise

Reviewers contribute to the journal on a voluntary basis and receive no financial remuneration.

Reviewers may:

  • Be acknowledged annually on the journal website
  • Cite their reviewing activity as part of their academic and professional service

 

8. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

All reviewers are required to:

  • Treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Decline review assignments where impartiality cannot be ensured

The journal adheres to internationally recognised publication ethics and peer review best practices.