Sophist: Journal of Social, Political, Islamic Studies, and Tafsir adheres to a peer-review policy. Manuscripts are sent to multiple reviewers (experts in their respective fields) to review them against journal guidelines and the characteristics of quality research manuscripts. For papers requiring changes, the same reviewers are used to ensure acceptable quality of the revised manuscript.

 

Sophist: Journal of Social, Political, Islamic Studies, and Tafsir maintains peer-review standards while improving the efficiency of the process.

 

All research articles published in Sophist: Journal of Social, Political, Islamic Studies, and Tafsir undergo full peer review, the key characteristics of which are listed below:

 

All research articles are reviewed by at least two qualified experts.

 

All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief based on the reviews provided.

Members of the international Editorial Board provide insight, advice, and guidance to the Editor-in-Chief in general and to assist in decision-making on specific submissions.

The Managing Editor and Editorial Assistants provide administrative support that enables the journal to maintain the integrity of peer review while providing rapid turnaround times and maximum efficiency to authors, reviewers, and editors.

This journal also benefits from the high-quality peer-reviewed manuscript referral process conducted by leading journals.

Peer review of refereed papers:

 

The editor of Sophist: Jurnal Sosial Politik Kajian Islam dan Tafsir will promptly decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to refereed papers based on the review and editorial insights from the supporting journal. In addition, the editor will have the option to request additional review if necessary. Authors will be notified when the editor determines that further review is necessary.

 

 

Articles submitted directly to Sophist: Jurnal Sosial Politik Kajian Islam dan Tafsir will be fully reviewed by at least two qualified experts in the field selected by the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief or a designated member of the editorial board will then decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.

The editors will determine whether each submission reports well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper. Priority assessment will not be a factor in decision-making, but all papers must make significant or novel additions to the literature.