Reviewer Guidelines

Hayula: Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Islamic Studies relies on the expertise and generosity of its reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated through a rigorous double-blind peer review process: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout. These guidelines set out what Hayula expects from its reviewers and how the review is conducted. The technical steps for working in the journal’s online system are provided in the Guide to Using OJS as a Reviewer/Editor below.

1. The Role of Reviewers

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may help the author improve the manuscript. Each manuscript is assessed by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise, affiliated with institutions different from those of the corresponding author.

2. Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers are invited because of their expertise. Before accepting, please consider:

  • Subject expertise — the manuscript falls within your field of competence;
  • Absence of conflicts of interest — you have no competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript; and
  • Availability — you can complete the review within the expected period. The review stage normally takes approximately 3–4 weeks from acceptance of the invitation.

Promptness. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that a timely review will not be possible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. If you accept but later find you cannot meet the deadline, please inform the editor as early as possible.

3. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor and must not be uploaded to public AI tools, in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy.

Conflicts of interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

4. How to Evaluate the Manuscript

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution — the work is original and advances knowledge in its field;
  • Theoretical and analytical depth — the argument is well grounded and rigorously developed;
  • Methodological rigor — the design, data, and analysis are sound and described in sufficient detail;
  • Clarity and organization — the manuscript is well structured and clearly written; and
  • Relevance to multidisciplinary Islamic studies — the work fits the journal’s Aims and Scope.

Acknowledgement of sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and point out missing, inaccurate, or irrelevant references. Reviewers should also draw the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which they are aware.

Standards of objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.

5. Writing Your Review

A helpful review report is constructive and specific. It normally contains:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution, in your own words;
  • Major comments on substantive issues — argument, method, evidence, and interpretation — that the authors must address;
  • Minor comments on clarity, structure, references, and presentation, located precisely (section, page, or paragraph); and
  • A recommendation to the editor (see below).

Comments meant only for the editor — for example, ethical concerns or a suspected overlap with other work — should be entered in the confidential comments field of the review form, not in the comments shared with the author.

Conclude your review with one of the following recommendations:

Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

6. After Submitting Your Review

  • If a manuscript you reviewed undergoes major revision, you may be invited to re-evaluate the revised version; re-review normally takes approximately 2–3 weeks.
  • The confidentiality of the manuscript continues after your review is submitted; please do not contact the authors directly, so that the double-blind process remains intact.
  • Questions about an invitation or a review in progress may be addressed to the editorial office at journalhayula@unj.ac.id.

These guidelines should be read together with the journal’s Publication Ethic Statement, which sets out the duties of reviewers in full.