Submissions

Author Guidelines

Muslim Business and Economics Review (MBER), published two times a year since 2022, is a peer-reviewed, open access journal published by UIII Press and managed by the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia. It specializes in current progress of Islamic Economics, Banking, Finance, and sustainable development. The Focus and Scope page lists the topics.

Articles should be original, research-based, unpublished and not under review for possible publication in other journals. MBER publishes robust empirical studies and results-oriented case studies. Authors explain any earlier or related publication in "Comments to the Editor." Manuscripts are written in English.

All submitted papers are subject to review of the editors, editorial board, and blind reviewers. Submissions that violate our guidelines on formatting or length will be rejected without review. All notes must appear in the text as citations. For bibliographical style, MBER follows the APA style, 7th edition.

MBER charges no fee for submission, article processing, or DOI maintenance.

Peer Review Process

All research articles undergo double-blind peer review by at least two suitably qualified experts. The Editors-in-Chief make all publication decisions on the basis of the reviews, with the guidance of the international Editorial Board. A decision is to accept, to request revisions, or to reject. The period of peer review, editing, copyediting, and proofreading usually takes 4-6 months.

Before review, the editors screen each submission for scope, formatting, similarity (see Publication Ethics), and anonymization. A submission that fails the screening may be returned or rejected without review.

Revision. Authors submit the revised, anonymized manuscript with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, by the deadline in the decision letter. The Peer Review Process page gives further details.

Information of Article

The manuscript follows this order: title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, method, results and discussion, conclusion, declarations, references, and appendices.

Article length should be between 6,000 and 10,000 words. This includes all text, for example, the structured abstract, references, all text in tables, and figures and appendices. The Declarations section is not counted.

Title is no more than 16 words.

Author(s) name is fully written without any title. Institution is completely stated, including the department, institution name, city, and country. Corresponding author includes name and email address. Author details must contain email address (official email preferred), name, and affiliation. An ORCID iD is recommended. These details go on the title page only (see Files and Anonymization).

The abstract is presented in a structured paragraph written in English (approximately 250 words). The abstract should contain aims, methods, results, and potential implications.

Keywords should be no more than five keywords written alphabetically under the abstract. JEL classification codes are recommended.

The introduction covers the background of the problem, novelties (research gaps), research objectives, and the structure of the paper.

The literature review provides a review of writings on the given topic so that a reader could establish an understanding of the author(s)' own position in the existing field of scholarship on that topic. It indicates how the author(s) enter the academic conversation on a particular topic in the context of appointed research.

The method contains research design, data, and tools for analysing research. For empirical and computational work, give enough detail to replicate it: data sources and period, variables, estimation approach, and software with versions.

Results and discussion contain the results of research in accordance with the objectives of the study accompanied by scientific discussions and arguments. Tables, graphs, and images that support the results of the study can be included. The discussion focuses on the main results of the study by incorporating or comparing the findings of research presented by previous researchers.

The conclusion contains a brief statement about the results obtained associated with the objectives and hypotheses (if any) that have been proposed. Recommendations and limitations of the research may be included in the conclusion.

References follow APA style.

Tables, Figures, and Equations

The provisions for writing tables, graphs, and drawings are as follows:

•          Tables and figures are placed in the text where they belong, not at the end.

•          They are numbered in order (Table 1, Figure 1), titled, and cited in the text. Follow APA 7: label and title above, source and notes below.

•          Tables are editable text, never images.

•          Figures are legible at print size. Raster images are at least 300 dpi and readable in black and white.

•          The source is stated under every table and figure, even if it is the authors' own calculation.

•          Variables, units, and significance symbols are defined in the table note.

•          Equations are written in an editable equation format, numbered in parentheses at the right margin, with every symbol defined.

•          Authors obtain written permission for third-party material and credit it in the caption.

•          AI-generated images or figures are disclosed in the caption (see Policy on the Use of AI).

References

References follow APA style, 7th edition. A reference manager such as Mendeley or Zotero is recommended. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided. Write DOIs as full links (https://doi.org/...). Cite datasets and software in APA 7 format. Cite the original source, never an AI tool. Check that every reference exists and that the authors have read it.

For Qur'anic verses, cite the edition or translation used and give the surah and verse. For hadith, name the collection and the number. For fatwas and Shariah standards, cite the issuing body, the number, and the year.

Journal article

Grady, J. S., Her, M., Moreno, G., Perez, C., & Yelinek, J. (2019). Emotions in storybooks: A comparison of storybooks that represent ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000185

Parenthetical citation: (Grady et al., 2019)

Narrative citation: Grady et al. (2019)

Hare, L. R., & O'Neill, K. (2000). Effectiveness and efficiency in small academic peer groups: A case study. Small Group Research, 31(1), 24–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100102

Parenthetical citation: (Hare & O'Neill, 2000)

Narrative citation: Hare and O'Neill (2000)

Book

Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. Penguin Books.

Parenthetical citations: (Sapolsky, 2017)

Narrative citations: Sapolsky (2017)

Magazine

Lyons, D. (2009, June 15). Don't 'iTune' us: It's geeks versus writers. Guess who's winning. Newsweek, 153(24), 27.

Parenthetical citations: (Lyons, 2009)

Narrative citations: Lyons (2009)

Thesis

Kabir, J. M. (2016). Factors influencing customer satisfaction at a fast food hamburger chain: The relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Publication No. 10169573) [Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Declarations

Every manuscript includes a Declarations section before the References. Each item is required, even if the answer is "none" or "not applicable."

Declaration	What to state
Funding	All sources of financial support for the project, or that there was none.
Conflicts of interest	Any financial or other substantive conflict that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation, or that there is none.
Ethics approval and consent	One of the four statements in Ethical Clearance and Informed Consent: approval obtained, exemption granted, approval not required, or not applicable.
Data and code availability	Where the data and code behind the results are stored, or why they cannot be shared and how others can request access.
Author contributions	Each author's role, using the CRediT taxonomy.
Acknowledgements	People who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria.
AI use	The declaration required by the Policy on the Use of AI, including when no AI tool was used.

Data and code. Authors deposit the data and code that produce the paper's results in a public repository such as Zenodo, OSF, or Harvard Dataverse, and give the link. If a licence or confidentiality rules out sharing the data, authors still share the code and a description of the data, and explain how to obtain access. For public sources, cite the source and give the retrieval date. Editors and reviewers may ask for data and code during review.

Blinding. In the anonymized manuscript, replace details that identify the authors, such as funder names tied to the authors, acknowledgements, or ethics committee names, with "[Blinded]." Give the full text on the title page.

Ethical Clearance and Informed Consent

MBER requires authors to protect the rights, dignity, and privacy of research participants. This policy applies to surveys, interviews, experiments, and studies using identifiable personal data.

Ethical approval. Where required, authors must obtain approval from an institutional ethics committee or equivalent body before recruiting participants or collecting data. The manuscript must state the committee's name, approval date, and reference number, if issued. Authors must provide supporting documentation when requested, with participant identifiers removed.

Informed consent. Participation must be voluntary and based on informed consent. Authors must explain how consent was obtained. Any waiver of consent must be authorized by the relevant ethics committee and reported in the manuscript.

Exemptions and approval not required. If ethical approval is exempt or not required, authors must explain why and cite the relevant institutional policy or applicable requirements. Where an exemption has been formally granted, authors must identify the issuing authority.

Statement. Place one of the following statements in the Declarations section, under "Ethics approval and consent." Choose the one that fits and complete the brackets.

Situation	Statement
Approval obtained	"This study was approved by [committee and institution] on [date], reference [number, if issued]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants."
Exemption granted	"[Committee or authority] confirmed that this study was exempt from ethical review under [policy or provision], reference [number, if issued]. [Describe consent arrangements or an authorized waiver.]"
Approval not required	"Ethical approval was not required under [institutional policy or applicable requirements] because [specific reason]. [Describe consent arrangements, where applicable.]"
Not applicable	"This study used only [published literature/publicly available aggregate data] and involved no interaction with human participants or access to identifiable personal data. Ethical approval and informed consent were therefore not applicable."

Blinding. In the anonymized manuscript, replace the committee's name, institution, date, and reference number with "[Blinded]." Give the full statement on the title page.

Files and Template

Submit the manuscript through the journal site in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect format, as separate files. Use the MBER template.

1.       Title page. Title, all authors with affiliation, email address, and ORCID iD, the corresponding author, the full Declarations, and acknowledgements.

2.       Anonymized manuscript. No author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements. Declarations that could identify the authors are replaced with "[Blinded]."

3.       Supplementary files (optional). Appendices, and links to data and code.

To keep the review blind:

•          Remove personal information from the file properties.

•          Cite your own earlier work in the third person. If a citation would identify you, replace it with "[Author, year]" and give the full reference on the title page.

•          Use an anonymized link for repositories during review, and share the public link after acceptance.

•          Do not name your institution, project, or data collection site if doing so reveals your identity.

Publication Ethics

This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in publishing an article in MBER: the author, the Editors-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, the reviewer, and the publisher, Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII). It is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and on COPE's position on authorship and AI tools and Retraction Guidelines. Advertising, reprint, and other commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.

Plagiarism and similarity. The Editorial Board reviews a manuscript only after the author attaches a similarity report showing that at least 75% of the text is original (a similarity index of 25% or lower). Use Turnitin, Plagiarisma, Crossref Similarity Check, or an equivalent tool. The score is a screening aid, not a verdict: editors read the overlaps themselves, and they treat copying others' work, or recycling one's own published text without citation, as plagiarism.

Duties of authors

•          Give an accurate account of the work and an objective discussion of its significance, with enough detail and references for others to replicate it. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.

•          Write entirely original work, and cite or quote the work and words of others. Check Qur'anic verses, hadith, fatwas, and Shariah standards against the primary or official text.

•          Do not publish essentially the same research in more than one journal, and do not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at once.

•          Limit authorship to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, and list all of them. The corresponding author makes sure every co-author has approved the final version and agreed to submission. Gift and ghost authorship are not acceptable.

•          Request any change to the authors in writing to the editor, with the reason and the consent of every author, including anyone removed.

•          Disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest and all sources of financial support.

•          Obtain ethics approval and informed consent for research with human participants (see Ethical Clearance and Informed Consent), protect their privacy, and take extra care with vulnerable groups, such as recipients of zakat and other social finance.

•          Do not fabricate or falsify data, figures, or images, and do not report results selectively in a way that misleads readers.

•          Notify the editor promptly on finding a significant error in your own published work, and cooperate in correcting or retracting it.

Duties of reviewers

•          Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not show it to or discuss it with others unless the editor authorizes it.

•          Review objectively, with supporting arguments and without personal criticism of the author.

•          Decline the review if you are unqualified, cannot review promptly, or have a competitive, collaborative, or other conflict of interest.

•          Identify relevant published work the authors have not cited, and tell the editor about substantial overlap with other published papers. Do not urge citations of your own work without a scholarly reason.

•          Do not try to identify the authors or contact them. If you recognize the authors, tell the editor. Do not hand the review to someone else without the editor's permission.

•          Do not use privileged information for personal advantage.

Duties of editors

•          Decide on publication by the validity of the work and its importance to researchers and readers, within legal requirements on libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

•          Evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content at all times, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

•          Disclose nothing about a submitted manuscript except to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Protect the double-blind process.

•          Do not use unpublished material from a submission in your own research without the author's written consent.

•          Step aside, and let another editor handle the manuscript, if you have a conflict of interest, including your own submissions. Do not ask authors to cite your work or journal without a scholarly reason.

Concerns, complaints, and appeals. Report an ethical concern in writing, with evidence, to the Editor-in-Chief at luthfi.hamidi@uiii.ac.id. The authors, reviewer, or editor concerned get a fair chance to respond, and the editors follow COPE guidance. A concern about the Editor-in-Chief goes to an Editorial Board member without a conflict, who handles it with UIII Press. Authors may appeal a rejection once, in writing, within [number of days] of the decision, with reasoned arguments or new evidence. An editor who did not make the original decision, or the Editorial Board, reviews the appeal, and that decision is final.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. MBER follows COPE's Retraction Guidelines.

•          A correction fixes an error that does not change the findings or conclusions.

•          An expression of concern is an interim notice for a credible but unresolved concern. It is not a finding of misconduct.

•          A retraction follows clear evidence of major errors, irregularities in data or images, misrepresentation, or established fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research. It corrects the record and is not in itself a finding against the authors.

Every notice has its own DOI, names the article, states the reason and who is responsible, and links to and from the article. The original article stays available, marked as retracted or corrected. MBER removes content only in rare legal cases, such as defamation, privacy, or safety.

Policy on the Use of AI

MBER allows authors, reviewers, and editors to use AI tools responsibly, provided humans stay accountable and the use is disclosed. This policy covers manuscripts, review reports, and editorial work, and follows COPE's position on authorship and AI tools.

AI tool means software that generates or substantially rewrites text, code, images, data, or references, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot. Basic assistive tool means software that only flags spelling, grammar, or punctuation in text the author wrote, without rewriting it.

Principles. Humans are accountable for everything they submit, review, or decide. Anyone who uses an AI tool in a way this policy covers says so. Unpublished manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence stay out of AI tools that can retain or reuse them. AI supports scholarly work and does not replace the author's analysis, the reviewer's evaluation, or the editor's decision.

For authors

Authorship. AI tools cannot be authors or co-authors, and authors must not cite an AI tool as an author.

Permitted, with disclosure. Authors may use AI tools to improve or translate their own text beyond basic spelling and grammar checks; to draft or restructure passages, provided the argument, analysis, and conclusions are the authors' own; to find or summarise literature; and to write or debug code for analysis or simulation.

Not permitted. Authors must not generate, alter, or fabricate data, results, images, or references with AI. They must not let AI produce the research design, analysis, interpretation, or conclusions. They must not upload personal, confidential, or unpublished sensitive data to tools that can retain or reuse it. They must not use a tool whose terms restrict the authors' or MBER's right to publish the output under the journal's license.

Verification. Authors check every claim, number, and citation that AI touched, including every Qur'anic verse, hadith, fatwa, and Shariah standard it produced.

AI as a research method. If AI is part of the method, for example an LLM that classifies text or LLM-driven agents in a simulation, describe it in the Method section. Report the tool, version, access dates, and the settings and prompts needed to replicate the work.

How to disclose. Every submission carries an AI declaration: a section titled "Declaration of AI use" before the References (part of the Declarations, not counted in the word limit); the AI item in the submission checklist plus a note in "Comments to the Editor"; and the Method section when AI is part of the method. Name tools and purposes only, so the declaration does not reveal authors' identity.

If no AI tool was used:

Use	Disclose?	Where
Spelling, grammar, or punctuation suggestions on your own text	No	n/a
Rewriting, paraphrasing, translating, or drafting text	Yes	Declaration of AI use
Finding or summarising literature	Yes	Declaration; verify every reference
Writing or debugging analysis code	Yes	Declaration and Method
AI as a research instrument (text classification, LLM agents)	Yes, in detail	Method and Declaration
AI-generated figures or images	Yes	Caption and Declaration

For reviewers

Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript (text, tables, figures, data, or abstract) to an AI tool. They must not paste a review report that contains manuscript-specific content into an AI tool, even to improve the language. They must not use AI to evaluate the manuscript or to write any part of the report. Reviewers may use AI for general background reading that involves no manuscript content, and they disclose any AI use in "Comments for the Editor." A reviewer who suspects undisclosed AI use by the authors tells the editor and does not investigate alone.

For editors and editorial staff

Editors and staff must not upload manuscripts, review reports, or editorial correspondence to AI tools that can retain or reuse them, and they must not use AI to decide on a submission or to draft decision letters from manuscript content. They may use AI for administrative tasks with no confidential content. If UIII provides a managed AI tool that does not retain or reuse inputs, the Editorial Board may approve specific uses of it. MBER does not treat AI-detection scores as proof of misconduct, and editors do not reject a manuscript on a score alone.

Suspected violations

Disclosed AI use does not by itself count against a submission. Failing to disclose breaches this policy, and fabricating data, quotations, or references is research misconduct. When the editors suspect a violation, they ask the author for an explanation and may request drafts, prompts, data, and code, and they handle the case as described in Publication Ethics. Outcomes before publication are required disclosure or revision, or rejection; after publication, a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction. A reviewer's report may be set aside and the reviewer removed from the reviewer pool.

The Editorial Board reviews this policy at least once a year, and sooner when COPE, ICMJE, or UIII guidance changes.