The primary commitment of Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah (JHESy) is to publish high-quality and reliable scholarly works. To ensure that every published manuscript possesses scientific validity and high academic integrity, we implement a strict and objective double-blind peer review system.

Manuscript Evaluation Stages

Every manuscript submitted to the JHESy editorial board undergoes six systematic evaluation stages to guarantee publication quality:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review):

   The editorial board conducts an initial evaluation to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal's focus and scope. We also check that the author has complied with the writing template, confirm that the manuscript has been fully anonymised by the author (metadata and author identity removed), and perform an initial similarity screening. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria will be returned to the author or rejected outright before entering the peer review stage.

2. Double Blind Peer Review:

   Manuscripts that pass the initial stage are sent to at least two independent reviewers. In this double-blind review process, both the reviewers' identities are kept strictly confidential from the authors, and the authors' identities are kept strictly confidential from the reviewers, in order to maintain objectivity in the assessment.

3. Assessment Criteria:

   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on academic quality. The assessment focuses on research novelty, objectivity, methodological accuracy, scientific impact, validity of conclusions, and recency and relevance of references.

4. Reviewer Recommendations:

   After reading and assessing the manuscript in full, the reviewers will provide constructive feedback and one of the following recommendations:

   • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without revisions.
   • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small changes not requiring full re-review.
   • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantive changes requiring re-evaluation.
   • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific standards.
5. Final Editorial Decision:

   The Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor will make the final decision on the suitability of the manuscript for publication, based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations. If the two reviewers have significantly different opinions, the editors may appoint a third reviewer to assist the editors in reaching a final editorial decision.

6. Appeal Policy:

   Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision within 30 days of its issuance. The decision following appeal review shall be final., applies only once per manuscript, and does not affect the publication process of other manuscripts. Full details of the appeal procedures can be found in the Editorial Appeals section of the Publication Ethics Policy.

   Editorial appeals concern disagreements with editorial or peer review decisions. They are distinct from allegations of publication misconduct, ethical violations, conflicts of interest, or procedural concerns. Such matters shall be handled in accordance with the Journal's Publication Ethics procedures.

Estimated Review and Publication Time

In the interest of transparency and in line with the best practices of global journal governance, we have set the estimated time for the editorial process from submission to publication as follows:

Reviewer Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, review reports, data, figures, supplementary files, or confidential editorial materials into generative AI systems. Review reports must reflect independent scholarly judgment. For complete requirements refer to the AI Policy.

Post-Publication Review Outcomes

Peer review does not guarantee the permanent validity of published work. If credible concerns arise after publication, the journal may conduct additional investigations and implement corrective measures under the Withdrawal and Retraction Policy.