Smart: Journal of Islamic Religion and Sharia Studies (SSharia) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly excellence. To ensure the validity, relevance, and originality of the research we publish, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer-review process.

I. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if the submission meets the foundational requirements of the journal. This initial screening typically takes 1 to 2 weeks and evaluates the following:

• Fit and Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal's focus on Islamic theology, religious jurisprudence, and Sharia law?

• Originality: The manuscript is screened using similarity-checking software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate) to ensure it is original and free of plagiarism.

• Adherence to Guidelines: Does the manuscript comply with the formatting, stylistic, and structural requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines?

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, exhibit high similarity scores, or lack fundamental academic rigor will be rejected at this stage (Desk Reject) without advancing to external review.

II. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent, expert reviewers whose academic backgrounds and research focus closely align with the subject matter of the submission. Reviewers are selected from our international database of scholars, legal experts, and theologians. The journal strictly enforces conflict-of-interest policies, ensuring that reviewers are not affiliated with the same institution as the author(s) and have no collaborative history that could bias their assessment.

III. The Double-Blind Review Procedure

SSharia employs a strict double-blind review system. This means that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the entire evaluation process. Authors are required to submit a separate title page containing their identifying information to facilitate this anonymity.

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

• Originality and Innovation: Does the research offer a novel contribution to the field of Islamic studies or Sharia jurisprudence?

• Methodological Rigor: Is the research design, theoretical framework, or analytical approach sound and appropriate for the research question?

• Clarity and Coherence: Is the argument logically structured, well-articulated, and written in clear, academic US English?

• Evidence and Contextualization: Are the claims supported by robust evidence, textual analysis, or empirical data? Is the work properly situated within existing literature?

• Significance: Does the manuscript provide meaningful insights for academics, policymakers, or practitioners?

The initial peer-review phase generally takes between 4 to 8 weeks to complete.

IV. Editorial Decision

Upon receiving the evaluation reports from the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief synthesizes the feedback and makes a formal decision. The corresponding author will receive one of the following notifications, accompanied by the anonymized reviewer comments:

1. Accept in Present Form: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any necessary modifications.

2. Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires slight adjustments, clarifications, or stylistic corrections before final acceptance.

3. Reconsider after Major Revisions: The manuscript shows significant promise but requires substantial restructuring, methodological refinement, or additional evidence. The authors are invited to revise and resubmit the paper for a second round of review.

4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication, lacks originality, or has fundamental methodological flaws.

V. Revision and Final Approval

When revisions are requested, authors are provided a specific deadline to submit their revised manuscript alongside a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document. This document must explicitly outline how each reviewer's comment was addressed or provide a scholarly justification if a specific suggestion was not adopted.

The Editor-in-Chief, sometimes in consultation with the original reviewers, will evaluate the revised submission to ensure all concerns have been adequately resolved. The final authority on the acceptance or rejection of any manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.