The peer review process is the cornerstone of academic integrity and scholarly excellence for Smart: Journal of Global Islamic Studies and Social Science (SGISci). To ensure that every published article meets the highest standards of international scholarship, the journal employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system. This process ensures that both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the evaluation, fostering an environment of impartiality and objective critique.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes a preliminary technical and substantive evaluation by the Editorial Office. This stage includes:

• Scope Alignment: Ensuring the manuscript falls within the thematic focus of Global Islamic Studies and Social Sciences.
• Plagiarism Check: All submissions are screened using professional detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate). A high similarity index may result in immediate rejection.
• Formatting Compliance: Verification that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s style guide and citation standards.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic criteria are returned to the author or rejected without further review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Submissions that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent experts in the relevant field. The selection of reviewers is based on their expertise, publication history, and lack of conflict of interest.

The Reviewer's Mandate

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Originality: Does the work provide new insights or significantly advance existing knowledge?
2. Methodological Rigor: Is the research design sound, and are the data collection/analysis techniques appropriate?
3. Theoretic Depth: Does the paper engage effectively with relevant Islamic studies or social science literature?
4. Clarity and Structure: Is the argument logical and the language proficient?

3. Editorial Decision-Making

Based on the detailed reports provided by the peer reviewers, the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following four recommendations:

Decision	Description
Accept Submission	The paper is accepted as is, requiring no further changes.
Minor Revisions	The paper is accepted pending small, specific changes.
Major Revisions	The paper requires significant restructuring or additional data before it can be reconsidered.
Decline Submission	The paper is rejected due to fundamental flaws or lack of contribution.

Note: In the event of conflicting reviews (e.g., one "Accept" and one "Reject"), the Editor-in-Chief may seek a third "tie-breaking" opinion from an additional expert.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors whose manuscripts require revisions must provide a detailed response letter alongside their corrected manuscript. This letter should outline how each of the reviewers' concerns was addressed.

• Minor Revisions are typically reviewed internally by the editor.
• Major Revisions are usually sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation to ensure all critiques were sufficiently resolved.

5. Final Approval and Production

The final decision to publish rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief. Once a manuscript is formally accepted, it proceeds to the production stage, which includes professional copyediting, layout design, and proofreading. Authors are given a final opportunity to review the "galley proof" before the article is officially published online and in print.

6. Ethical Integrity and Confidentiality

SGISci adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All participants in the review process authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality. Reviewers may not use any data or ideas from the unpublished manuscript for their own benefit.