Reviewer Selection, Responsibilities, and Recognition Policy

Antmind Review: Journal of Sharia and Legal Ethics, published by Antmind Youth Empower Foundation, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, independent, fair, and transparent peer-review process.

The journal recognizes the essential contribution of reviewers in maintaining scholarly quality, strengthening academic arguments, identifying methodological limitations, and safeguarding the integrity of published research.

This policy establishes the principles governing reviewer selection, professional responsibilities, ethical conduct, performance evaluation, and appropriate recognition of reviewing contributions.

Antmind Review follows a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential during the evaluation process.

Each research article that passes initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise.

Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor according to their academic qualifications, research expertise, professional integrity, and independence.

Reviewer selection considers the subject matter and methodological approach of each manuscript, particularly in Islamic law, Sharia, legal ethics, comparative law, socio-legal studies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Eligible reviewers should possess appropriate academic qualifications, demonstrated knowledge of the relevant discipline, and sufficient research or scholarly experience to provide a reliable evaluation.

The journal seeks to maintain an academically diverse reviewer community representing relevant institutions, research backgrounds, and geographical regions.

Reviewer selection must be based on scholarly competence and independence rather than personal relationships, institutional influence, or potential citation benefits.

Where appropriate, editors may consider qualified reviewers suggested by authors. However, suggested reviewers must undergo independent verification, and the final selection remains under editorial authority.

The Editorial Office may verify reviewer identities, institutional affiliations, and scholarly profiles to prevent fraudulent or manipulated peer-review practices.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Standards

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and evidence-based evaluations that contribute to improving manuscript quality.

Review assessments should address the manuscript's originality, academic relevance, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, quality of argumentation, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation.

Reviewers should:

• Evaluate manuscripts fairly and without personal bias.

• Provide clear, constructive, and academically justified comments.

• Identify significant methodological, theoretical, or analytical limitations.

• Assess the accuracy and relevance of cited literature.

• Identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research-integrity concerns.

• Respect the intellectual contributions of authors.

• Submit review reports within the agreed review period.

For research involving Islamic law and legal ethics, reviewers should consider the accuracy of legal interpretation, appropriate use of primary legal sources, relevant jurisprudential arguments, and consistency between research evidence and conclusions.

Reviewers must distinguish essential scholarly revisions from personal preferences regarding writing style or theoretical orientation.

Review recommendations must be based on academic considerations rather than the reviewer's personal interests or institutional affiliations.

Confidentiality, Independence, and Conflicts of Interest

All submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, and review reports are confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, share unpublished findings, or use confidential information for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage.

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation.

Relevant conflicts may include close personal relationships, recent research collaboration, shared institutional affiliations, financial interests, academic rivalry, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers must decline or withdraw from an assignment when they cannot provide an independent and objective evaluation.

Reviewers must not delegate their assessment to another person without prior authorization from the Editorial Office.

The journal also prohibits uploading confidential manuscripts or related review materials to public generative artificial intelligence platforms or using AI to replace independent scholarly assessment.

All review reports must reflect the reviewer's own professional judgment.

Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Following manuscript evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute final editorial decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor evaluates the reviewers' assessments, the authors' responses, and the manuscript's overall scholarly quality before making an editorial decision.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may seek clarification or invite an additional independent reviewer.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further evaluation is necessary.

The journal does not permit reviewers to require irrelevant citations, promote their own publications without academic justification, or pressure authors to adopt particular scholarly positions.

Final editorial decisions remain independent of publication charges, institutional relationships, and external influence.

Reviewer Performance and Quality Assurance

Antmind Review is committed to maintaining the quality and reliability of its reviewer community.

The Editorial Office may periodically evaluate reviewer performance based on the relevance, thoroughness, objectivity, constructiveness, ethical conduct, and timeliness of submitted assessments.

Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality evaluations may be invited to participate in subsequent review assignments.

Where significant concerns arise regarding review quality, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or professional conduct, the journal may provide guidance, discontinue assignments, or remove an individual from its active reviewer records.

The journal does not impose mandatory acceptance of review invitations. Reviewers are encouraged to decline invitations promptly when they lack the necessary expertise, independence, or availability.

Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgment

Antmind Review recognizes that peer reviewing is an important form of academic service that contributes to the advancement of scholarly knowledge.

The journal supports appropriate recognition of reviewers while maintaining the confidentiality of its double-blind peer-review process.

Recognition may include:

• Acknowledgment of active reviewers on the journal's official reviewer page, with their consent.

• Confirmation of completed reviewing activities upon request, following verification by the Editorial Office.

• Acknowledgment letters or certificates where authorized by the journal.

• Opportunities to contribute to the journal's continued scholarly and editorial development.

Reviewer recognition must not compromise the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, reveal reviewer assignments without authorization, or influence the independence of review recommendations.

Public acknowledgment of reviewers must not disclose which specific manuscripts they evaluated unless the applicable parties have expressly agreed and the journal has established an appropriate disclosure procedure.

Recognition is based on genuine reviewing contributions and professional conduct, not on favorable recommendations or the acceptance of manuscripts.