Reviewer Guidelines

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Integrated Socio-Economic Systems and Islamic Finance (JISSIF) are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review.

Before Agreeing to Review

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that:

The manuscript aligns with their area of expertise.

They can complete the review within the requested timeframe (normally within two weeks).

No financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal conflicts of interest exist that could affect their objectivity.

Any potential conflict of interest is disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before accepting the assignment.

If additional time is needed to complete the review, the handling editor is informed as soon as possible.

Key Points for Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should consider:

Relevance and Originality

The manuscript presents original and meaningful scholarly work.

The title accurately reflects the content and scope of the study.

Organization and Presentation

The abstract provides a clear summary of the research.

The introduction establishes the context and objectives of the study.

The manuscript is logically organized and easy to follow.

The conclusions are clearly stated and consistent with the study findings.

Literature and Context

Relevant literature has been adequately reviewed.

Recent and significant research in the field has been appropriately considered.

Research Design and Methodology

The methodology is suitable for addressing the research objectives.

Sufficient methodological detail is provided to enable replication.

Specialized techniques or procedures are clearly explained or supported by supplementary documentation where necessary.

Results and Interpretation

Data are presented accurately and reliably.

Results are analyzed appropriately.

Interpretations and conclusions are supported by the evidence provided.

Tables, Figures, and Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses are appropriate and correctly applied.

Tables, figures, graphs, and illustrations are clear, accurate, and easy to understand.

Visual materials effectively support the findings of the study.

Preparing the Review Report

Review reports should be professional, constructive, and evidence-based. Comments should address, where relevant:

• Strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Clarity, structure, and readability.
• Adequacy of the research design and methodology.
• Quality and reliability of the data and analyses.
• Whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.
• Areas requiring revision, clarification, or additional information.
• Suggestions that may improve the quality and impact of the manuscript.

Reviewers should provide feedback that assists both the authors and the editorial team in improving and evaluating the work.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Treat all manuscripts and related correspondence as confidential documents.
• Refrain from sharing manuscript content or seeking outside assistance without prior approval from the handling editor.
• Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe.
• Report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
• Maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the review process.
• Decline review assignments where conflicts of interest may compromise independent judgment.

Any disclosed conflict of interest will be assessed by the editorial team, which may reassign the manuscript when necessary.

Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations serve as an important part of the evaluation process; however, they are advisory in nature.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.