Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review Process

Tanzil: Jurnal Studi Al-Quran applies a rigorous editorial and peer-review process to ensure that all published manuscripts meet academic standards and contribute to the development of Qur'anic Studies. All manuscripts submitted through the Open Journal System (OJS) undergo several stages of evaluation, including initial editorial assessment, peer review, revision, editing, and publication.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to Tanzil: Jurnal Studi Al-Quran are initially examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor/Handling Editor.

The Editor-in-Chief may handle the manuscript directly or assign a Section Editor/Handling Editor to manage the editorial process. At this stage, the editor evaluates whether the manuscript:

• fits the focus and scope of the journal;
• follows the journal's author guidelines and manuscript template;
• meets basic academic, ethical, and submission requirements;
• demonstrates potential scholarly contribution to the field of Qur'anic Studies.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, submission requirements, ethical standards, or basic academic criteria may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review (desk rejection).

Estimated time: 1–2 weeks

2. Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Section Editor/Handling Editor to two independent reviewers through a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Each manuscript submitted to Tanzil: Jurnal Studi Al-Quran is evaluated by two reviewers with relevant expertise in accordance with the topic, approach, and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence and should have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

• relevance of the manuscript to Qur'anic Studies and the journal's focus and scope;
• originality and scholarly contribution;
• theoretical framework and engagement with previous studies;
• appropriateness and rigor of research methodology;
• quality of analysis and discussion;
• relevance and adequacy of references;
• consistency between research objectives, arguments, findings, and conclusions;
• clarity and academic quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers provide objective assessments and constructive comments to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to focus primarily on the scholarly substance of the manuscript rather than minor technical issues, unless such issues affect the clarity and academic quality of the article.

The reviewers' recommendations provide important input for editorial decisions; however, the final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor based on the reviewers' evaluations and the journal's editorial policies.

Estimated time: 4–6 weeks

3. Editorial Decision After Peer Review

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the editor evaluates the manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's independent academic judgment.

The editor may consider various factors, including the quality of the manuscript, the significance of its contribution, the reviewers' comments, and the authors' responses to previous evaluations.

The possible editorial decisions are:

Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's academic standards and is accepted for publication without substantial revision.

Revisions Required (Minor Revision)

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication but requires limited revisions based on reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript will be evaluated by the editor before final acceptance.

Resubmit for Review (Major Revision)

The manuscript has academic potential but requires substantial improvement. Authors are required to revise the manuscript and provide responses to reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

Decline Submission

The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's academic standards, lacks sufficient originality or contribution, does not adequately address reviewer concerns, or falls outside the journal's scope.

When reviewers provide different recommendations, the editor will make the final decision based on the overall academic quality of the manuscript. The editor may request further review, additional clarification, revision, or make a decision based on independent editorial assessment.

4. Revision and Final Evaluation

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' comments and submit the revised version through OJS.

The editor evaluates the revised manuscript by considering:

• whether the authors have adequately addressed reviewers' comments;
• whether the revisions have improved the academic quality of the manuscript;
• whether further revision or additional review is necessary.

Based on this evaluation, the editor may:

• accept the manuscript for publication;
• request further revisions;
• send the manuscript for another round of review;
• reject the manuscript if the required improvements have not been adequately addressed.

Estimated time: 2–4 weeks

5. Editing, Layout, and Publication

After final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, including copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and final publication.

The editorial team ensures that the published article follows the journal's formatting standards and maintains academic and publishing quality.

Estimated time: 2–4 weeks

Total Publication Timeline

The entire process from submission to publication generally takes approximately 10–14 weeks, depending on the complexity of the review process, reviewer availability, the extent of revisions required, and editorial processing.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

All manuscripts submitted to Tanzil: Jurnal Studi Al-Quran are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, or use any information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should decline the review assignment if they have any potential conflict of interest, including personal relationships, institutional affiliations, recent collaboration with the authors, or other circumstances that may affect their objectivity.