Ar Rehla: Journal of Islamic Tourism, Halal Food, Islamic Traveling, and Creative Economy applies a double-blind peer-review system to ensure the academic quality, originality, and credibility of published articles. Each manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening followed by evaluation by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor before proceeding to peer review.
The screening covers:
Relevance: Suitability of the manuscript to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Originality: Initial examination of originality and similarity in accordance with the Plagiarism Policy.
Academic Quality: Preliminary assessment of the research problem, methodology, analysis, and scholarly contribution.
Manuscript Preparation: Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines and article template.
Submission Completeness: Verification of manuscript files, author information, metadata, and required documents.
Manuscripts that do not meet the initial requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection). Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to reviewer assignment.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor, who appoints at least two independent reviewers based on their subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide objective academic assessments.
Ar Rehla implements a double-blind review process, in which:
Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
Manuscripts and review reports are treated confidentially throughout the evaluation process.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. When necessary, the handling editor may appoint replacement or additional reviewers.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and academically justified evaluations within the agreed review period.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria:
Relevance: Alignment with the journal's academic scope.
Originality and Contribution: Novelty of the research and its contribution to existing knowledge.
Research Objectives: Clarity and significance of the research problem, objectives, and questions.
Theoretical and Methodological Quality: Appropriateness of the theoretical foundation, research design, data sources, and analytical methods.
Results and Discussion: Accuracy of findings, depth of analysis, and relevance of scholarly interpretation.
Academic Presentation: Clarity, coherence, organisation, and appropriate use of scholarly references.
For review-based manuscripts, evaluation also considers the transparency of literature selection, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing research.
Reviewers provide written comments and recommendations to support editorial decisions and improve manuscript quality.
After considering the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates their recommendations and advises the Editor-in-Chief on the appropriate editorial decision.
The possible decisions include:
Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's academic standards and requires no substantive revisions.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited improvements in clarity, presentation, analysis, or other specific aspects.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements to its methodology, analysis, arguments, or interpretation before further consideration.
Reject Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards or contains significant weaknesses that prevent publication.
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent assessment before determining the appropriate decision.
Manuscripts requiring extensive redevelopment may be recommended for resubmission as new submissions, subject to a new editorial assessment.
Authors receiving revision requests must address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
Authors are required to:
Revise the manuscript according to the editorial and reviewer recommendations.
Provide a point-by-point response explaining the changes made.
Present academically justified explanations for recommendations that are not adopted.
Submit the revised manuscript and response document within the specified deadline.
Authors are generally given up to one month to complete revisions, unless the editorial team specifies a different deadline.
The handling editor assesses the revised manuscript and may return it to the original reviewers or appoint additional reviewers when further evaluation is necessary.
Additional revision rounds may be requested if important concerns remain unresolved. A revision request does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.
The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts, taking into consideration the peer-review reports, handling editor's recommendations, academic quality, and adequacy of revisions.
The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through OJS. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not independently determine manuscript acceptance.
All editorial decisions must be based on academic merit, objective evaluation, fairness, and editorial independence.
Manuscripts receiving final acceptance proceed to the journal's publication preparation stage.
