Peer Review Process

TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted for publication undergoes a peer-review process to evaluate its academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, and suitability for publication.

The peer-review process involves at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. This process aims to maintain scholarly standards, improve the quality of manuscripts, and ensure that editorial decisions are made fairly and objectively.

TATANAN applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. The process consists of the following nine stages.

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system using Open Journal Systems (OJS). Authors must ensure that the manuscript complies with the journal's Author Guidelines and submission requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript fits the focus and scope of TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah. The editor checks the manuscript's structure, writing style, completeness, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.

The editor also evaluates the manuscript's basic academic quality, relevance, and methodological appropriateness. A similarity check may be conducted using Turnitin or other available similarity-checking software to identify potential plagiarism before the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

3. Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal, sufficiently original, academically relevant, and potentially significant to the development of legal and sharia studies. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external review.

4. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the manuscript's subject. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, relevant research experience, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

The manuscript is sent to reviewers in an anonymized form. Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscript does not contain identifying information that could compromise the double-blind review process.

5. Review Invitation Response

Invited reviewers consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, whether any conflicts of interest exist, and whether they can complete the review within the specified period. Reviewers may accept or decline the invitation. When declining, they may recommend alternative reviewers with relevant expertise.

6. Peer Review

Reviewers carefully evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance, theoretical contribution, research methods, analysis, interpretation of findings, clarity of presentation, and use of references. They are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

After completing the evaluation, reviewers submit their reports and recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations are:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards.

7. Editorial Evaluation and Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor carefully evaluate the reviewers' reports and recommendations before making an editorial decision. If the reviewers' assessments differ substantially, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to support a fair and balanced decision.

The editorial decision may take one of the following forms:

A. Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions. The editorial team informs the author of the decision and provides instructions for preparing the final version, if necessary.

B. Accept with Revisions

The manuscript may be considered for publication after the author completes the requested minor or major revisions. The revised manuscript is evaluated by the editor and may be returned to the reviewers when further assessment is necessary.

C. Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered. The editor will inform the author whether the revised work must be submitted as a new submission and undergo another full review process.

D. Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. The decision is communicated to the author, together with reviewer comments where applicable.

8. Communication of the Decision

The editor communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal's OJS system or the registered email address. Reviewer comments are provided without disclosing reviewer identities, enabling authors to understand the assessment and respond appropriately.

Authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments systematically and explain the revisions made. If they disagree with a recommendation, they may provide a reasoned academic response for the editor's consideration.

9. Revision, Final Assessment, and Publication

Authors whose manuscripts require revision must submit the revised manuscript together with a response to the reviewers' comments within the deadline specified by the editorial team. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, unless further review is considered unnecessary or a reviewer is unavailable.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor, while manuscripts requiring substantial changes may undergo another round of peer review. The final acceptance decision rests with the editor.

Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, and publication preparation in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures. Published articles are made available through the journal website in accordance with its access and licensing policies.

Review Duration

The duration of the peer-review process depends on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions through the journal's OJS system or their registered email address.

TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and academically rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research.

```