Peer Review Policy

Submitted manuscripts will be pre-reviewed by the editors, determining whether the manuscript meets to the Walisongo Journal of Sharia Economic Law's submission guidelines and requirements. Manuscripts which have fulfilled to the journal's style and journal policy will be peer-reviewed. The Walisongo Journal of Sharia Economic Law is a double blind peer-reviewed journal which involves many reviewers of experts in relevant field. Final decision of manuscript acceptance is solely decided by the editors according to reviewers' comment. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed. The Walisongo Journal of Sharia Economic Law uses plagiarism checker to screen articles for detecting plagiarism (Turnitin). Detection of overlapping and similar text is used there and so quotations and appropriate citations have to be used whenever required. 
 
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. Those manuscripts evaluated by editors to be inappropriate to journal criteria are rejected promptly without external review. Manuscripts evaluated to be of potential interest to our readership are sent to double blind reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewer’s recommendation from among several possibilities: rejected, require major revision, need minor revision, or accepted. The Editor-in-Chief of the Walisongo Journal of Sharia Economic Law has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.
 
Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or more experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board.
 
The Walisongo Journal of Sharia Economic Law implements the peer review policy as a means to ensure the quality of the publication in the journal. The peer-review process consists of initial review, double-blind review, and the decision by the editor. 
  1. Initial Review: The editor evaluates the submitted manuscript to determine if the content is suitable for the journal. The manuscript is also subjected to a similarity check procedure to identify any indication of plagiarism. Manuscripts with contents that are not suitable for the journal or with a high percentage of similarity will be returned immediately to the author(s).
  2. Peer Review: Submitted manuscripts that have passed the initial review are subjected to double-blind peer review, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process. Minimum of two reviewers are assigned to evaluate and provide the recommendation for a manuscript. In assigning the reviewers, the editor is responsible to avoid the conflict of interest during the review process. 
  3. Decision: The editor makes the final decision on the acceptability of a manuscript based on the comments and recommendation of the reviewers.

Reviewer Guidelines

In reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should pay attention to the following:

Presentation

Does the paper relate a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly presented?

Writing

Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length

What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

Title

Does the title concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.

Abstract

Does the abstract consist of 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result or finding; and 4) conclusion?

Introduction

  1. Clearly describing and respectively:
  2. The background of the study;
  3. State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
  4. Gap analysis, novelty statement;
  5. Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
  6. Approach to resolve the problem; and
  7. The aim of the study.

Methods

  1. The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
  2. Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
  3. Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;

Results and Discussion

  1. The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into a table or figure and given a supportive description which easy to follow.
  2. The result related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
  3. The author describes the result of the study consistent with what other investigators have reported or there any differences.
  4. The author provides interpretation scientifically for each of the results or findings presented.
  5. The author describes the implications of the research.
  6. The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
  7. The author describes further need/areas for research or expansion of ideas.

Conclusion 

  1. Answer the objectives of the research;
  2. Implication or recommendation (optional).