Reviewer Guidelines

Tanzhim al Usrah: Journal of Islamic Family Law highly values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Purpose of Review

The review process is intended to assist the editor in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to assess the academic merit, originality, clarity, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript to the field of Islamic family law.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Review the manuscript objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  • Provide clear, constructive, and academic comments to improve the manuscript.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all related information.
  • Inform the editor if there is any conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.
  • Complete the review within the time specified by the editorial team.
  • Identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the author.
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concern to the editor.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects:

  • Relevance to the focus and scope of the journal
  • Originality and academic contribution
  • Clarity of title, abstract, objectives, and arguments
  • Appropriateness of research method or analytical approach
  • Depth and quality of discussion
  • Use of relevant and up to date references
  • Organization, coherence, and academic writing quality
  • Suitability of conclusion with the findings or analysis

4. Recommendation

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers are expected to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed with others, or used for personal advantage without the permission of the editor.

6. Objectivity and Ethics

Reviews should be conducted objectively and supported by clear arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views respectfully and provide professional comments that can help improve the manuscript.

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the review assignment if they have any conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationships with the authors or related institutions.

8. Timeliness

If a reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that a prompt review cannot be completed, the reviewer should notify the editor immediately so that the manuscript can be assigned to another reviewer.

9. Final Note

The editorial team greatly appreciates the reviewers’ valuable time, expertise, and contribution in supporting the publication of high quality scholarly articles.