Islamic Studies Review (ISR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published twice a year, in print and online, by Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII).
The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, editorial independence, research transparency, and responsible scholarly communication.
This publication ethics policy establishes the responsibilities of authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher throughout the publication process. It also explains the journal's procedures for addressing ethical concerns, research misconduct, corrections, retractions, and post-publication discussions.
The policy is informed by the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing .
These standards apply to all manuscripts considered by the journal, including research articles, review essays, and book reviews, with procedures appropriate to each article type.
Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.
The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for decisions concerning manuscript acceptance, revision, and rejection. Decisions may be informed by recommendations from handling editors and independent reviewers, but editorial authority is not delegated to external organisations or commercial interests.
Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political affiliation, institutional background, or personal characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit.
The publisher, sponsors, institutional authorities, and other interested parties must not interfere with editorial decisions. Advertising, publication charges, institutional relationships, or other financial considerations must not influence manuscript evaluation.
Research articles submitted to Islamic Studies Review undergo double-anonymous peer review after passing initial editorial screening.
Each research article is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when the initial assessments differ substantially or when specialised expertise is required.
Review essays and book reviews undergo editorial assessment, with an external reader consulted where appropriate.
Peer review must be conducted independently, impartially, and confidentially. Reviewers are expected to provide reasoned assessments supported by scholarly arguments and relevant evidence.
The journal does not require authors to cite articles published in ISR merely to increase the journal's citation metrics. Reviewers must not recommend unnecessary citations to their own work, the journal, or another source.
Detailed information is available in the Peer Review Process .
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining which manuscripts are suitable for publication. Decisions are based on the validity of the work, its scholarly significance, compliance with the journal's scope, and recommendations obtained through the editorial process.
Editors must ensure that manuscript decisions are supported by appropriate scholarly assessment and communicated to authors with sufficient explanation.
Editors evaluate manuscripts according to academic merit and established editorial criteria, without inappropriate discrimination, favouritism, or personal prejudice.
Editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, unpublished findings, and editorial correspondence.
Information concerning submitted manuscripts may be disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the editorial process or to authorised parties when required for legitimate ethical or legal investigations.
Editors must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that could compromise their impartiality.
Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from handling the manuscript. Responsibility must be transferred to another qualified editor who has no competing interest.
Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal must be handled independently. The author concerned must not participate in the editorial assessment or decision.
Editors must not use unpublished material, research findings, data, or ideas obtained through manuscript submission for personal research or professional advantage without the author's explicit written consent.
Editors are responsible for maintaining appropriate records of editorial decisions, reviewer assignments, ethical concerns, and relevant communications.
Editors must respond appropriately to substantiated concerns regarding the integrity of submitted or published work.
Peer reviewers assist editors in evaluating the scholarly quality of manuscripts and provide constructive recommendations that may help authors improve their work.
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise and sufficient time to complete a thorough assessment.
Reviewers who lack the necessary expertise or cannot meet the agreed deadline must inform the editorial office promptly.
Manuscripts received for review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, circulate, or discuss their contents without editorial authorisation.
Unpublished information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage.
Reviews must be conducted objectively and supported by scholarly reasoning. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, unsupported allegations, or deliberately misleading assessments are unacceptable.
Reviewers should identify relevant scholarly literature that has been overlooked and notify editors of substantial similarities between the submitted manuscript and previously published work.
Reviewers must decline assignments where competitive, collaborative, supervisory, institutional, financial, or personal relationships could compromise impartiality.
Reviewers are prohibited from using artificial intelligence or generative AI tools to conduct manuscript assessments.
This prohibition includes using AI to analyse manuscript content, evaluate scholarly quality, summarise arguments, generate reviewer comments, formulate recommendations, or prepare review reports.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, unpublished data, figures, tables, or confidential review materials to AI applications.
Peer-review reports must reflect the reviewer's independent scholarly judgement, expertise, and responsibility.
Authors must present accurate, transparent, and sufficiently detailed accounts of their research and provide objective discussions of its findings and scholarly significance.
Manuscripts should contain appropriate methodological explanations, references, and supporting evidence sufficient for scholarly evaluation.
Fabrication, falsification, selective misrepresentation of evidence, and knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
Authors must submit original work and appropriately acknowledge the intellectual contributions of other scholars.
Direct quotations, paraphrases, translations, data, images, and other materials derived from existing sources must be properly attributed.
Manuscripts must not be simultaneously submitted to another journal. Redundant or duplicate publication of substantially identical research without appropriate disclosure is prohibited.
Preprints deposited in recognised repositories are not automatically considered prior publication. Authors must disclose the existence of relevant preprints and provide their DOI or repository link where available.
Authorship is limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript preparation.
All authors must approve the submitted manuscript and accept responsibility for their contributions.
Author contributions must be documented using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in the final manuscript.
Individuals who contributed to the work without meeting the authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.
Changes to the author list after submission require a written explanation and agreement from all affected authors. Unresolved authorship disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions.
Authors must acknowledge relevant scholarship and ensure that all citations and references are accurate, complete, and verifiable.
Fabricated references, invented quotations, inaccurate source attribution, and unverifiable citations are unacceptable.
Authors who discover a significant error in their published work must inform the editorial office promptly and cooperate in issuing an appropriate correction or retraction.
Research submitted to the journal must comply with applicable ethical standards, institutional policies, and relevant laws.
Research involving human participants or animals must obtain appropriate ethical approval where required.
Manuscripts must identify the approving ethics committee or institutional review body and provide the relevant approval number where applicable.
Where formal ethical approval is not required, authors must explain the applicable exemption or provide an appropriate statement of ethical compliance.
Such statements must be consistent with institutional requirements, applicable regulations, and the ethical safeguards employed during the research.
Authors must obtain informed consent from research participants where required. Participants must be provided with appropriate information about the research and the intended use of their contributions.
Consent to participate in research does not automatically constitute consent to publish identifiable personal information.
Authors must protect participant privacy and confidential information. Identifying details must be removed, anonymised, or published only with appropriate authorisation.
Research involving communities affected by conflict, displacement, discrimination, religious sensitivity, or legal vulnerability must explain the safeguards used to minimise potential harm.
Authors must demonstrate appropriate respect for participant autonomy, confidentiality, and the social context in which research was conducted.
Authors should provide sufficient information about the evidence, research materials, methods, and sources underlying their scholarly arguments.
Research based on historical documents, manuscripts, archival collections, or published texts must identify the relevant sources sufficiently for scholarly verification.
Where appropriate and ethically permissible, authors are encouraged to make supporting research data available through suitable repositories.
Restrictions arising from confidentiality, participant consent, privacy, intellectual property, legal obligations, or cultural sensitivity must be explained.
Research articles must include an appropriate Data Availability Statement in the final published version.
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their scholarly judgement.
Relevant interests may include financial support, employment, consultancy, institutional relationships, personal relationships, professional commitments, or other competing interests.
Editors and reviewers with relevant conflicts must withdraw from the affected manuscript evaluation.
Authors must include a Conflict of Interest statement in the final manuscript, including an explicit declaration when no relevant conflicts exist.
All sources of research funding must be disclosed, including grant numbers where applicable.
Manuscripts without external funding must include an appropriate statement confirming the absence of external financial support.
The journal recognises the increasing use of artificial intelligence in research and scholarly communication.
AI-assisted activities must comply with the principles of transparency, accountability, confidentiality, originality, research integrity, and independent human judgement.
Artificial intelligence systems do not qualify for authorship and must not be listed as authors or co-authors.
Authors using generative AI in manuscript preparation must disclose the name of the tool, its version where identifiable, and the purpose for which it was used.
Disclosure is required when generative AI is used for drafting, rewriting, substantive language editing, translation, literature synthesis, analytical interpretation, or the generation of research-related content.
Routine spelling and grammar checking that does not generate substantive content need not be individually disclosed.
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, reliability, and integrity of the submitted manuscript.
AI-generated references, quotations, translations, factual claims, and interpretations must be independently verified.
Research articles and review essays must include a statement headed Declaration of Generative AI Use in the final manuscript.
Where AI has been used, the statement must identify the relevant technology and explain its contribution to manuscript preparation.
Where no generative AI tools have been used, authors should provide the following declaration:
The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Editors may use AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative or technical activities when confidentiality, data protection, and editorial independence can be maintained.
Any permitted use of AI by editors must be appropriately documented and disclosed according to the nature of its use.
Editors must not use AI to replace independent scholarly evaluation or determine manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Confidential manuscripts and unpublished research materials must not be uploaded to external AI applications in ways that compromise confidentiality or intellectual property rights.
Editors remain responsible for the integrity of the editorial process and all decisions made.
The use of artificial intelligence by reviewers during the peer-review process is prohibited.
Reviewers must not use AI tools to analyse, evaluate, summarise, or interpret submitted manuscripts, generate reviewer comments, or prepare peer-review reports.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of confidential review materials to AI applications.
Peer-review assessments must reflect independent human expertise and scholarly judgement.
Suspected violations may be investigated by the editorial office in accordance with the journal's research integrity procedures.
Every submitted manuscript is screened using Turnitin before editorial assessment.
Similarity screening is repeated on the final manuscript before publication.
Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 25%, after excluding references and properly attributed quotations, may be returned for revision or declined following editorial assessment.
A similarity index does not independently establish plagiarism. Editors examine the nature, sources, extent, and context of textual overlap before reaching a conclusion.
Identified overlap is assessed to distinguish legitimate scholarly quotation, properly attributed reuse, technical similarities, and potential academic misconduct.
Confirmed plagiarism, deliberate misrepresentation, or other serious violations may result in manuscript rejection, correction, or retraction as appropriate.
The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously and follows relevant COPE guidance when investigating concerns involving submitted or published manuscripts.
Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
Concerns about possible misconduct should be submitted to the editorial office with sufficient information to identify the article or manuscript and explain the nature of the allegation.
The editorial office conducts an initial assessment of the available evidence. Where the concern requires further investigation, the Editor-in-Chief may consult relevant editors, the publisher, or appropriate institutional authorities.
Authors or other parties concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantiated allegations.
Investigations must be conducted fairly and confidentially, with appropriate consideration of the rights and responsibilities of all parties.
Depending on the findings, the journal may reject a manuscript, request clarification or correction, issue an expression of concern, publish a correction, or retract the article.
The journal may refer matters requiring formal institutional investigation to the relevant research institution or authority.
Islamic Studies Review is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
Where a published article contains significant errors or ethical concerns, the journal may issue an appropriate notice.
A correction is issued when a published article contains a significant error that requires clarification but does not invalidate the principal findings.
A corrigendum addresses a significant error introduced by the authors that does not invalidate the central findings.
An erratum corrects an error introduced during editing, typesetting, or production.
An addendum provides significant supplementary information omitted from the original publication without changing the validity of its findings.
An expression of concern may be issued when credible concerns about a published article remain unresolved or require further investigation.
Retraction may be necessary when substantial errors, unreliable findings, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other serious violations undermine the reliability or integrity of an article.
A retraction notice must identify the article, explain the reason for retraction, and remain publicly accessible.
In exceptional circumstances, a retracted article may be replaced by a corrected version when such a procedure is scientifically and ethically justified.
The replacement must be clearly identified and linked to the original publication record.
Complete removal of published content is reserved for exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, ethical, or safety grounds.
Where removal is necessary, an appropriate public notice explaining the action should remain accessible whenever legally permissible.
Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other post-publication notices must be clearly identified, linked to the affected article, and preserved as part of the publication record.
The journal follows applicable COPE guidance when determining the appropriate response to post-publication concerns.
The journal provides a mechanism for authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders to raise concerns about editorial decisions, publication ethics, or the integrity of published work.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision.
Appeals should identify specific grounds, such as a demonstrable factual error, procedural irregularity, or relevant conflict of interest.
Disagreement with a reviewer's academic judgement alone does not normally constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.
Appeals requiring independent reassessment may be referred to an editor who was not involved in the original decision.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or the handling of manuscripts may be submitted through the journal's official contact channel.
Complaints are assessed according to their nature and supporting evidence.
Where a complaint involves the Editor-in-Chief or another individual responsible for its assessment, the matter should be referred to an appropriate independent editor or the publisher.
Contact information is available on the journal's Contact page.
The journal recognises post-publication scholarly discussion as an important component of academic accountability and the advancement of knowledge.
Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit evidence-based comments, scholarly criticisms, or requests for clarification concerning published articles.
Such submissions should identify the article, explain the issue, and provide relevant supporting evidence or scholarly references.
The editorial office evaluates submissions for relevance, accuracy, scholarly merit, and ethical appropriateness.
Where appropriate, authors may be invited to respond to substantive criticisms or requests for clarification.
The journal may publish relevant comments, author responses, or editorial notices when necessary to support an accurate and transparent scholarly record.
Substantiated allegations of research misconduct are addressed through the journal's established ethical investigation procedures.
Authors retain copyright in their published work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
Articles published in Islamic Studies Review are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) .
Published articles are immediately accessible to readers without subscription or registration.
The journal does not charge submission fees, article processing charges, or publication fees.
Further information is provided in the journal's Licensing Policy and Publication Fee Policy .
Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII), as the publisher of Islamic Studies Review, is committed to supporting responsible scholarly publishing and maintaining the integrity of the academic record.
The publisher supports editorial independence, transparent publication policies, responsible research practices, and ethical procedures for handling misconduct.
Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial interests, advertising revenue, institutional pressure, political considerations, or personal relationships.
Where allegations of research misconduct or publication irregularities arise, the publisher works with the Editor-in-Chief and relevant authorities to ensure that the matter receives appropriate consideration.
The publisher supports the publication of corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other necessary notices when warranted by the findings.
The publisher also supports responsible stewardship of published content, the protection of editorial information, and the long-term accessibility of the scholarly record.
Islamic Studies Review expects all participants in the publication process to uphold the principles of academic honesty, fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and accountability.
These policies are intended to protect the integrity of scholarly communication and maintain confidence in the research published by the journal.
The journal may review and update its publication ethics policies in response to developments in scholarly publishing standards, research integrity guidance, and applicable regulations.
Authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal's Author Guidelines and Peer Review Process for related requirements.
Data updated: 2026-06-22 14:50
Indonesia
United Kingdom
Egypt
Pakistan
Australia
India
United States
Singapore
Qatar
PS
Nigeria
Malaysia
MA
Lebanon
HU
Finland
China
Canada
Bangladesh
