Peer Review Process

Lubna: Journal of Islamic Elementary Education applies a rigorous double-blind external peer-review process to ensure the originality, academic quality, methodological reliability, relevance, and ethical integrity of all published manuscripts. All submissions, reviews, revisions, and editorial decisions are centrally managed through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor. This preliminary assessment considers the manuscript’s:

Conformity with the journal’s Focus and Scope.
Originality and academic contribution (novelty).
Methodological quality and structural integrity.
Compliance with the Author Guidelines and language standards.
Similarity-check results (plagiarism screening).
Adherence to the journal’s Publication Ethics and Research Integrity.

Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient scholarly contribution (e.g., small-scale conventional Classroom Action Research without clear novelty), contain serious methodological weaknesses, fail to meet ethical requirements, or do not comply with the submission guidelines will be rejected prior to external review.

2. Independent External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s topic, theoretical framework, and research methodology.

Double-Blind Review Policy: Lubna strictly employs a double-blind peer-review system. This means the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from each other throughout the entire evaluation process. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that the main manuscript file does not contain any identifying information, author names, institutional affiliations, or self-revealing citations.
Reviewer Selection: The journal prioritizes reviewers who are not affiliated with the authors’ institutions, have no recent collaborative history with the authors, and possess no financial, personal, or professional relationships that could compromise their impartiality.
Editorial Board Restriction: Editorial board members may only review a manuscript if they possess highly specific expertise, have zero conflict of interest, and are entirely excluded from the final editorial decision regarding that manuscript.

3. Review Criteria and Responsibilities

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following scholarly parameters:

Clarity and significance of the research problem.
Originality of the contribution and relevance of the literature.
Appropriateness and transparency of the methodology, data collection, and analysis.
Consistency between findings and conclusions.
Theoretical, pedagogical, and practical implications.
Ethical compliance and the overall quality of academic presentation.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscript contents, review reports, and editorial correspondence.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest (e.g., shared institutional affiliation, direct academic competition) and decline the review invitation if necessary.
Constructive Feedback: Comments must be evidence-based, respectful, and academically justified. Recommendations to add citations must be based solely on scholarly relevance, not citation manipulation.
Ethical Vigilance: Reviewers must immediately inform the editor if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research involving children/human subjects, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

4. Review Duration

The journal aims to complete the first round of external peer review within four to eight weeks after a manuscript is assigned. This duration may be extended if conflicting reports require clarification, additional expertise is needed, or substantial methodological issues must be investigated. Authors will be notified via the OJS if significant delays occur.

5. Editorial Decisions

Following the receipt of the reviewers’ reports and the Handling Editor’s assessment, the manuscript will receive one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission: Accept without further revision.
Revisions Required: Accept with minor revisions.
Resubmit for Review: Reconsider after major revisions (requires a new round of review).
Decline Submission: Reject due to substantive academic or ethical flaws.

Note: Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and journal scope.

6. Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit the revised manuscript alongside a detailed Response-to-Reviewers document. This document must individually address every comment made by the reviewers and editors.
If an author chooses not to follow a specific recommendation, a robust academic justification must be provided.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee final acceptance. The editor retains the right to reject a revised manuscript if major methodological, theoretical, or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

7. Confidentiality, Data Protection, and Generative AI

Submitted manuscripts are strictly confidential. Editors and reviewers are prohibited from disclosing manuscript content, identities, or unpublished findings outside the formal editorial process.
Generative AI Restriction: Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, or supporting materials to public generative artificial intelligence platforms (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) or external services that do not guarantee absolute data protection and confidentiality.

8. Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely affiliated with the journal are subject to the exact same rigorous standards. They will be managed by an independent editor and evaluated by external reviewers with no conflicts of interest.
Editorial decisions are insulated from commercial considerations, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, religion, or political views.

9. Research Integrity, Appeals, and Complaints

Suspension for Misconduct: If potential research or publication misconduct is identified, the review process will be immediately suspended pending a thorough investigation. The journal reserves the right to request raw data, ethical-approval documents, and informed-consent records.
Appeals: Authors may appeal a rejection decision only if they can demonstrate a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error in the review process. Appeals based solely on a disagreement with academic judgment will not be entertained. All appeals must be submitted in writing with relevant scholarly evidence.

10. Online Review Management

To ensure transparency, traceability, and proper documentation, all manuscripts, reviewer invitations, review reports, author revisions, and editorial correspondence must be managed exclusively through the official Lubna online submission system (OJS). Submissions or reviews sent via personal email or messaging applications will not be processed.