Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications. Bayan: Jurnal Studi Islam dan Humaniora employs a double-blind peer review system in which both authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed to ensure an objective and unbiased evaluation process.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, professional, and timely assessments of all assigned manuscripts.

Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective scholarly evaluations;
  • offer constructive comments to improve manuscript quality;
  • maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript-related information;
  • avoid conflicts of interest;
  • complete the review process within the specified deadline.

Evaluation criteria

Reviewers should assess the following aspects:

1. Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of Bayan: Jurnal Studi Islam dan Humaniora, which publishes research on Islamic studies and humanities, including education, law, history, Islamic thought, culture, society, and contemporary issues?

2. Originality and scholarly contribution

Does the manuscript demonstrate novelty and make a meaningful theoretical, methodological, or practical contribution to the field of Islamic studies and humanities?

3. Title, abstract, and keywords

Does the title accurately reflect the content?

Does the abstract clearly present the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

Are the keywords relevant and appropriate?

4. Introduction

Does the introduction clearly explain the research problem?

Does it identify a research gap?

Are the research objectives clearly stated?

5. Methodology

Is the research methodology adequately described?

Are the research design, data sources, data collection methods, and analytical techniques appropriate?

Is the methodology sufficiently transparent and reproducible?

6. Results and discussion

Are the results presented systematically?

Is the discussion supported by evidence?

Are the findings compared with previous studies?

Does the discussion provide meaningful scholarly interpretation?

7. Conclusion

Does the conclusion address the research objectives?

Are the implications of the study adequately discussed?

Are the limitations and recommendations for future research identified?

8. References

Are the references relevant, current, and sufficient?

Do the references primarily include scholarly journal sources?

Are citations and references presented consistently?

Reviewer comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide:

Comments to the author

  • overall assessment of the manuscript;
  • section-specific comments;
  • specific and actionable recommendations for improvement.

Comments should be professional, respectful, and constructive.

Confidential comments to the editor

Reviewers may report concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or other matters affecting publication integrity.

Recommendation

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear reasoning.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with others;
  • use unpublished data or ideas for personal benefit;
  • upload manuscripts to public AI systems or third-party AI platforms.

Conflict of interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have any conflict of interest, including:

  • personal or professional relationships with the authors;
  • recent research collaboration;
  • financial interests;
  • academic competition that could compromise objectivity.

Review ethics

Reviewers are expected to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and uphold the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and professionalism throughout the peer review process.