Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Zona Economics and Islamic Economics (ZEIE) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, integrity, originality, and transparency in scholarly publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an editorial screening and peer-review process before a final publication decision is made.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission through the Online Journal System (OJS), the Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript. This screening evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and journal template;

  • Originality and academic contribution;

  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript;

  • Appropriateness of the research methodology;

  • Quality and relevance of references;

  • Language and overall readability; and

  • Compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Originality Screening

Before proceeding to peer review, manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection software.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original and that all ideas, quotations, data, tables, figures, and other materials derived from external sources are appropriately cited.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, manipulated citations, or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected.

3. Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Zona Economics and Islamic Economics (ZEIE) applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Each manuscript will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, independence, and relevance to the manuscript's subject area.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research;

  • Relevance to economics, Islamic economics, Islamic finance, accounting, business, or related disciplines;

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • Strength of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • Quality and reliability of the data and analysis;

  • Clarity of the results;

  • Depth and quality of the discussion;

  • Engagement with relevant previous literature;

  • Theoretical, practical, managerial, or policy implications;

  • Consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;

  • Quality and relevance of references; and

  • Overall contribution to academic knowledge and practice.

Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, and academically justified recommendations to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the Editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  1. Accepted – The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revision.

  2. Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements before acceptance.

  3. Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revision and may undergo another round of peer review.

  4. Rejected – The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

The Editor considers reviewers' recommendations when making a decision; however, the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection remains the responsibility of the Editor/Editorial Board.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors.

Authors should submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript; and

  • A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

When authors disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, they should provide a clear and academically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.

7. Final Evaluation and Acceptance

After the revision process has been satisfactorily completed, the Editor conducts a final evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the scientific, ethical, linguistic, and formatting standards of Zona Economics and Islamic Economics.

Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the editorial production stage, which may include:

Copyediting → Layout Editing → Proofreading → Publication

Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication to identify typographical or production errors.

8. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts received for review.

Manuscripts, research data, unpublished findings, and other information obtained through the peer-review process must not be disclosed or used for personal advantage.

Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized parties.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline a review assignment when there is a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic relationship that may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

When necessary, the Editor will appoint another independent reviewer.

10. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective and constructive assessments;

  • Evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit;

  • Maintain confidentiality;

  • Avoid personal criticism of authors;

  • Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked;

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns to the Editor;

  • Disclose potential conflicts of interest; and

  • Complete reviews within the requested period whenever possible.

Discriminatory judgments based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, political beliefs, or other irrelevant personal characteristics must not influence the review process.

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Commercial considerations, institutional relationships, or other inappropriate external influences must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

12. Peer Review Flow

The standard editorial process is:

Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Plagiarism/Originality Check → Editor Assignment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Reviewer Recommendations → Editorial Decision → Author Revision (if required) → Re-evaluation → Final Decision → Copyediting → Layout → Proofreading → Publication

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revision rounds required.