SEMBJ maintains the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to SEMBJ undergo a systematic evaluation to ensure they meet the journal's criteria for originality, methodology, and contribution to the field of Sharia economics and management.

1. Review System: Double-Blind Peer Review

SEM-BJ employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process. This means:

• The identity of the author(s) is concealed from the reviewers.
• The identity of the reviewers is concealed from the author(s). This system ensures that the evaluation is objective and free from personal or institutional bias.

2. Initial Desk Review

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Team to check for:

• Scope Fit: Does the paper align with the journal’s aims and scope?
• Plagiarism: A Turnitin check is performed (maximum similarity index of 20%).
• Basic Quality: Does it meet the minimum requirements for language, formatting, and structure?

Manuscripts that fail this stage will be rejected immediately (Desk Rejection) or returned to the author for correction before being sent for review.

3. The Review Process

• Reviewer Assignment: Papers that pass the desk review are sent to at least two (2) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
• • Novelty and originality.
  • Rigorousness of the methodology.
  • Clarity of the Sharia-based analysis or management implications.
  • Standard of academic writing.
• Timeframe: Reviewers are typically given 4–6 weeks to complete their evaluation.

4. Review Outcomes

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission: The paper is accepted for publication as-is.
• Revisions Required (Minor/Major): The author must address specific comments and resubmit. A re-review may be required for major revisions.
• Resubmit for Review: The paper requires significant changes and will undergo a new round of peer review.
• Decline Submission: The paper does not meet the journal’s standards or has fundamental flaws.

5. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority on all publication decisions. This decision is final and cannot be appealed unless the author can prove a significant error in the review process.

6. Confidentiality and Ethics

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They are not permitted to share or use the data before the article is published.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with the authors or institutions) and must decline the review if a conflict exists.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with constructive feedback provided to help the authors improve their work.