Review Process

To maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and quality, Journal of Islamic Contemporary Accounting and Business (JICAB) employs a rigorous peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a systematic evaluation as outlined below:

First Step: Editorial Desk Screening (Initial Assessment). Before sending the manuscript to reviewers, the Editor conducts a preliminary screening. This process includes assessing the alignment of the manuscript’s aims and scope with the journal's focus, performing a plagiarism check (ensuring a maximum similarity index of 20% via Turnitin to guarantee content originality), and verifying technical compliance regarding formatting guidelines and citation styles. Should the manuscript fail to meet these requirements, the Editor reserves the right to reject the submission or return it to the author for correction. This stage typically takes 1–2 weeks. Upon successful completion, the Editor will assign two peer reviewers.

Second Step: Assignment of Two Peer Reviewers. The Editor invites two independent subject-matter experts to evaluate the manuscript. These reviewers assess the work’s originality, the relevance of the theoretical framework, the significance of its contribution, methodological rigor, data analysis, statistical validity, and the depth of the results, discussion, and conclusion. The evaluation is conducted under a double-blind system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly confidential. This stage generally takes 1–8 weeks. Following the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations: Accept Submission: The paper is ready for publication as-is. Revisions Required (Minor): The paper is acceptable after small changes (e.g., clarifying sentences, adding specific references). Resubmit for Review (Major): The paper needs significant structural changes or further data analysis, followed by a second round of review. Decline Submission (Reject): The paper has fundamental flaws or lacks sufficient contribution.

Third Step: Editorial Decision & Conflict Resolution. The Editor carefully evaluates the reports provided by both reviewers. In the case of a Consensus, where both reviewers agree, the Editor proceeds with that decision. In the event of Conflicting Reviews (e.g., Reviewer A recommends "Accept" while Reviewer B recommends "Reject"), the Editor may make the final decision or appoint a Third Reviewer (Adjudicator) to break the tie. This process typically takes 1–4 weeks.

Fourth Step: Revision and Final Disposition. The author receives the feedback and must submit a revised manuscript along with a formal Response to Reviewers letter. Once the revised version is resubmitted, the Editor and reviewers conduct a Final Verification. If the revisions are satisfactory, the Editor will issue an official Letter of Acceptance (LoA). However, if the requirements are not yet met, the author will be asked to perform further revisions. This final stage generally requires 1 week.