The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether a submitted manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the Journal of Quranic Media Studies. Manuscripts deemed suitable are forwarded to the Managing Editor for further processing, including verification of compliance with the journal’s maximum similarity threshold. Turnitin is used to assess similarity. Scores below 20% may proceed subject to editorial assessment; scores of 20–40% require contextual examination and may require revision; scores above 40% will generally lead to rejection. Editorial decisions consider the nature and extent of overlap rather than the score alone.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers appointed by the editor. All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening undergo a double-anonymous peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure impartiality, academic rigor, and ethical integrity. Only manuscripts that receive favorable evaluations from qualified reviewers and meet the journal’s editorial standards are considered for publication.
The Journal of Quranic Media Studies upholds rigorous double-anonymous peer review standards while maintaining an efficient and transparent editorial process. The primary stages of this process are outlined below.
The journal employs a two-stage evaluation process, beginning with an initial editorial screening followed by an external peer review. After a technical and administrative assessment, each submission undergoes an editorial evaluation to determine its relevance, originality, and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are assigned to a handling editor for further assessment. Those that fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet its minimum editorial standards may be rejected at this stage without external peer review (desk rejection). However, research manuscripts cannot be accepted for publication without completing the required peer-review process.
For manuscripts that align with the journal’s scope and editorial standards, the handling editor identifies and invites at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Since peer review is a voluntary academic service, the process may take additional time. Nevertheless, editors actively monitor its progress to ensure timely evaluations. During this stage, the manuscript undergoes external peer review.
Once the required number of review reports has been received, the handling editor evaluates the reports and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Authors are informed of the editorial decision and, if revisions are necessary, are provided with the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.
Following resubmission, the handling editor evaluates whether the revised manuscript adequately addresses the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. If necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for further revision or rejected if it does not meet the journal’s academic standards. Additionally, revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or assigned to additional independent reviewers for further expert assessment when warranted.
For manuscripts referred from supporting journals, existing peer review reports and editorial assessments may be considered, provided their authenticity, relevance, and compliance with the journal’s peer review standards can be verified. Such manuscripts remain subject to the journal’s initial editorial screening and double-anonymous peer review process. Previous reviews do not automatically qualify a manuscript for acceptance.
Where necessary, the handling editor appoints additional independent reviewers to ensure that the manuscript undergoes a sufficiently rigorous and impartial evaluation. Final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal’s editors, and authors are informed accordingly.
Steps 1–5 cover the initial submission, screening, and peer review stages. If revisions are required, the process continues with resubmission and further evaluation by editors or reviewers until a final decision is made.
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards, the handling editor may issue one of the following decisions:
Decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts are made by the handling editor based on reviewers’ reports and recommendations, as well as the journal’s academic and ethical standards. Final acceptance is granted only after the required peer review process has been completed and the manuscript meets the journal’s publication criteria. When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations or further expert assessment is necessary, the handling editor may invite an additional independent reviewer or initiate another round of peer review before making a final decision.
The Editor-in-Chief determines the publication schedule and the order of accepted manuscripts, considering their acceptance dates and the journal’s publication arrangements. The target from submission to final editorial decision is approximately 12 weeks. The time required may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the assessment, and the extent and timeliness of revisions. This target is not a guarantee of acceptance or of publication within 12 weeks.
In accordance with the journal’s publication ethics, all manuscripts under review are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer review processes. Unpublished manuscripts and related review materials must not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the editorial evaluation without proper authorization.
Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised. Editors with a conflict must recuse themselves, and manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team must be handled independently under the same review standards. Reviewers should not attempt to identify anonymous authors or communicate with them directly about the review.
Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to public generative AI services. Review reports should be respectful, specific, and evidence-based. Publication decisions remain the responsibility of the editor; payment, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships do not determine acceptance. JQMS does not offer a paid fast-track service.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should contact the Editorial Office with the reasons and supporting evidence. Appeals are assessed objectively, with independent editorial involvement where a conflict exists.
Articles are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
