Peer-Review Process

Submissions must adhere to the guidelines outlined for authors. Failure to meet these requirements, including correct formatting, may result in the manuscript being returned without a scientific evaluation. Additionally, indications of publication misconduct may lead to rejection.

It is imperative that submissions reflect the original and independent work of the authors. The Principal Editor evaluates each submission to ensure it aligns with the scope of the Antmind Review: Journal of Sharia and Legal Ethics. Manuscripts lacking in content, exceeding the word limit, or exhibiting formatting errors may be rejected outright. Furthermore, instances of plagiarism or unclear presentation will also lead to rejection.

Once initial checks are passed, manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process. This means that reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, ensuring impartiality. Peer review comments remain confidential unless reviewers expressly permit disclosure. Authors can anticipate a decision or an explanation for any delays within two months of submission. If revisions are requested, the corresponding author is expected to submit them within two weeks.

Ultimately, the Principal Editors make the final decision based on feedback from the peer-review process. Confidentiality is maintained throughout, in accordance with publication ethics.