Peer Review Policy

In this policy

Purpose and scope
Initial editorial assessment
Reviewer selection and impartiality
Reports and author revisions
Decision and timing
Confidentiality and appeals
Journal-specific provisions — retained content

01 Purpose and scope

Peer review at El-Sunan: Journal of Hadith and Religious supports editorial assessment of a submission’s contribution, soundness and clarity. The confirmed arrangements below state the review model and any exceptions. This general description does not itself establish that every content type receives external review. Authors should consult those arrangements and the author guidelines before preparing their submission.

02 Initial editorial assessment

The editorial office checks completeness and routes the submission for assessment of scope, relevance and ethical concerns. A manuscript may be returned for missing information or declined before external review when it is unsuitable. Authors receive an editorial communication about the outcome. Passing an initial check is not acceptance and does not waive later assessment of research integrity.

03 Reviewer selection and impartiality

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and ability to provide an independent assessment. They disclose conflicts and decline work they cannot fairly assess. Author suggestions may inform selection but do not bind the editor. Special issues and submissions involving editorial staff need arrangements that separate interested parties from reviewer selection and the final decision.

04 Reports and author revisions

Reports should identify strengths, limitations and changes needed, with reasons proportionate to the claims. Personal criticism and requests for irrelevant citations are inappropriate. Authors respond to substantive comments and identify revisions or explain disagreements. The editor may request clarification, further revision or additional review; the number of rounds depends on the issues that remain unresolved.

05 Decision and timing

The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reports and responses before issuing a reasoned decision. Reviewers advise; their recommendations are not votes that automatically determine acceptance. Published processing statistics describe past cases, not a promised deadline for a new submission. Authors may ask about progress and receive information on material delays or request withdrawal through the editorial office.

06 Confidentiality and appeals

Review material is handled confidentially according to the confirmed model. Reviewers must not use unpublished findings for personal advantage or share manuscripts with unapproved third parties. The journal’s AI policy also applies to review work. Authors may appeal on factual or procedural grounds using the complaints route; acceptance and successful appeal are never guaranteed.

07 Journal-specific provisions — retained content

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to El-Sunan: Journal of Hadith and Religious Studies undergo a systematic, fair, and rigorous evaluation in accordance with the following review policies:

Author Guidelines & Template Compliance: Reviewers only evaluate submitted articles that strictly adhere to the journal's prescribed guidelines and official manuscript template.

Double-Blind Peer Review: The review process employs a double-blind peer-review model where both author and reviewer identities remain strictly confidential throughout the evaluation lifecycle.

Independent Multi-Reviewer Assessment: Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent experts in the relevant field to guarantee academic rigor and objective quality assurance.

Comprehensive Substance & Ethics Check: Reviewers assess title alignment, abstract clarity, depth of discussion, validity of conclusions, scientific novelty, and contribution to scholarly discourse, while also monitoring for plagiarism and publication ethics compliance.

Structured Recommendation: Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following decisions: Accept Submission, Revisions Required (Minor), Resubmit for Review (Major), or Decline Submission.

Nature of Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are required to recommend a course of action; however, each manuscript is evaluated by peers with varied technical perspectives, and editorial decisions may need to resolve conflicting recommendations. Reports that deliver well-grounded arguments—clearly elucidating points for and against publication—provide editors with the most critical basis for reaching an objective conclusion.

Editorial Independence & Quality Weighting

Editorial judgments do not depend on vote counting or simple numerical scoring, and the journal does not necessarily adopt majority suggestions automatically. The editorial team weighs the intellectual merits of arguments raised by both reviewers and authors alongside contextual standards. The core responsibility of the editorial board remains committed to readers and the wider academic audience, ensuring only work with verified merit reaches publication.

Subsequent Consultations & Fair Hearing

When significant divergence arises among reviewer evaluations or when authors present evidence of factual misunderstandings, the editorial office may contact reviewers for follow-up clarification. To preserve scholarly objectivity while respecting reviewers' time, further inquiries are restricted to matters essential for granting authors a rigorous and impartial hearing.