for Reviewer

As a reviewer, you play a vital role in ensuring that all articles submitted to AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to both appeal to readers and advance our goal to accelerate the development of Islamic tourism studies, halal culinary tours, syar'i tours / worship such as Hajj, Umrah, or pilgrimages of Islamic heritage, as well as creative economy that does not conflict with Islamic law.

These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript, so that your review will be both thorough and consistent with those of other reviewers.

Responsibilities as a reviewer

As a reviewer, you will be responsible for reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam. You will be expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the authors, with the purpose of encouraging them to improve their manuscript.

Ethical responsibilities

AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam relies on the impartiality and discretion of reviewers, and as a reviewer, you are entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. We expect you to treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with the appropriate level of discretion.

  • Do not use any of the information therein for the advancement of your own research or to discredit another party.
  • Do not discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party.
  • Ensure that the information therein and details of the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
  • Maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process. Do not under any circumstances contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscript.
  • Be fair, honest, and objective in your evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Declare a conflict of interest, and recuse yourself immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.

Basic criteria

A good review looks at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details. The former is informed by the latter. When evaluating a manuscript for AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam, look at the following aspects:

  • Is the manuscript within AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam’s scope? How interesting will the article be to the journal's readership?
  • NOVELTY OF THE RESEARCH. Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
  • APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TITLE. Does the title accurately represent the content?
  • CONTENT QUALITY. Does the article adhere to AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam's standards? Is the research question an important one? Does the manuscript help to expand or further current research in its respective field?
  • Is the description of the methodology informative, clear, and concise? Is the methodology of the research precise and properly conducted? How appropriate is the approach or experimental design?
  • SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS. Do the results have significant implications for islamic studies and society?
  • APPROPRIATENESS OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL. Is every figure/table necessary and correctly described? Is the supplementary material appropriate for the content?
  • COMPLETENESS OF THE DATA. How complete are the data?
  • RELEVANCE OF THE DISCUSSION. Is the discussion relevant to the results and the rest of the content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous research?
  • APPROPRIATENESS OF CITATIONS/REFERENCES. Are all citations accounted for? Is there an appropriate amount of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
  • CLARITY OF THE CONTENT. How good is the English? Will AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam’s readership have trouble understanding the content?
  • ADHERENCE TO AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam'Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's guidelines, such as the structure of the manuscript? Have tables and figures been submitted separately?
  • ADHERENCE TO CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATURE. Are species names up-to-date and correctly spelled? Are technical terms used correctly?

Ethical considerations

In addition to the above criteria, also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing, re-publication, or fraud. Things to look for:

  • Observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit. For example, text has been copied verbatim without a clear indication that it is a quote, text has been copied but not cited (suggesting that these are the authors' own words/ideas), or some portion of the text has been copied without the permission of the original author. If you find that a significant part of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the editor as soon as possible so we can take the appropriate actions.
  • MISSING, INCORRECT, OR INCOMPLETE REFERENCES. All text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts that have been published previously should be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intent.
  • RE-PUBLICATION. It is against AHKAM: Jurnal Hukum Islam’s policy to publish work that has already been published elsewhere. Please notify the editor if you find an instance of a manuscript having been published previously (partially or fully).
  • Any part of the manuscript that is found to be untrue should be highlighted as such. Any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the editor's attention.

Publication ethics is not limited to these four items. If you believe the authors have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright or patent, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the handling editor.


Your final task as a reviewer will be to recommend that the manuscript be a) accepted as is, b) accepted with minor revisions, c) accepted with major revisions, d) accepted with major revisions (requiring a re-review), e) rejected but with a recommendation to re-submit after the work is more developed, or f) outright rejected. If your recommendation is to reject the manuscript, you should explain your reasons why.

Each recommendation should be supported by the facts of the evaluation, and backed with constructive criticism. Be aware that you are one of at least two reviewers. Even if your recommendation differs from the other reviewers' recommendations, a good critical review will enable us to make an informed final decision on the manuscript. Also note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account the recommendation of each review, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision.