Peer Review Procces

Darunnajah in Economics (DIEC) applies a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts. Both the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

The peer-review process is designed to ensure that manuscripts published by DIEC meet appropriate academic, methodological, ethical, and scholarly standards and make a meaningful contribution to economics, business, finance, Islamic economics and finance, development studies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted through the official DIEC Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript:

  • fits the journal's Focus and Scope;
  • meets the basic requirements of the Author Guidelines;
  • demonstrates sufficient academic relevance and originality;
  • follows the required manuscript structure and template;
  • provides adequate citations and references;
  • meets ethical and publication-integrity requirements;
  • does not contain apparent plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.

The editorial office may use plagiarism or similarity-detection software as part of the initial screening process.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor.

The editorial assessment considers:

  • relevance to DIEC's scope;
  • significance of the research problem;
  • originality and novelty;
  • theoretical foundation;
  • methodological appropriateness;
  • quality of empirical or conceptual analysis;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • potential contribution to economics and related fields.

The editor may reject a manuscript at this stage when it does not demonstrate sufficient academic quality or relevance for external review.

Editorial decisions at this stage are independent of commercial considerations.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are assigned to qualified external reviewers.

DIEC normally seeks at least two independent reviewers for each research manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • relevant academic expertise;
  • research specialization;
  • publication record;
  • methodological competence;
  • institutional independence;
  • absence of conflicts of interest.

Whenever possible, reviewers should be affiliated with institutions different from those of the manuscript authors.

The editorial office avoids assigning reviewers who have personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other relationships that could compromise the objectivity of the review.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

4. Double-Blind Review

DIEC uses a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this system:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
  • reviewer reports are communicated to authors anonymously;
  • editorial decisions are made independently of the identities of the reviewers and authors.

Authors are therefore required to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not unnecessarily reveal their identity during the review process.

Self-identifying statements, institutional acknowledgments, or other information that could compromise reviewer anonymity may be temporarily removed during review and restored after acceptance where appropriate.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts systematically according to the following criteria:

A. Relevance and Significance

  • Does the manuscript fall within the scope of DIEC?
  • Is the research problem relevant to current economic or related scholarly debates?
  • Is the research question clearly formulated?
  • Is the study potentially significant for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers?

B. Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?
  • Is the research gap clearly identified?
  • Does the study advance existing knowledge?
  • Is the novelty adequately demonstrated?

C. Theoretical Foundation

  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate?
  • Is the literature review sufficiently critical and relevant?
  • Does the manuscript engage with current and authoritative literature?
  • Are theoretical arguments logically developed?

D. Methodological Rigor

  • Is the research design appropriate?
  • Are data sources adequately described?
  • Is the sampling procedure appropriate?
  • Are variables and measurements clearly defined?
  • Are analytical techniques appropriate?
  • Is the research sufficiently transparent and reproducible where applicable?

E. Results and Analysis

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Is the analysis technically appropriate?
  • Are statistical or qualitative analyses adequately justified?
  • Are tables and figures accurate and informative?
  • Do the findings adequately address the research questions or hypotheses?

F. Discussion

  • Are the findings interpreted appropriately?
  • Are the findings connected to previous research?
  • Does the discussion explain similarities, differences, and unexpected findings?
  • Are theoretical, practical, and policy implications appropriately discussed?

G. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion answer the research objectives?
  • Are the main contributions clearly stated?
  • Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?
  • Are recommendations or future research directions justified by the findings?

H. Presentation and Language

  • Is the manuscript clearly organized?
  • Is the academic language appropriate?
  • Are citations and references accurate?
  • Are tables, figures, and equations properly presented?
  • Does the manuscript comply with the journal's Author Guidelines?

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers provide a recommendation to the editorial team.

The possible recommendations are:

1. Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revision required.

2. Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or improvements.

3. Major Revision

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision in areas such as theory, methodology, analysis, discussion, structure, or presentation.

4. Revise and Resubmit

The manuscript requires substantial improvement before a new editorial or peer-review assessment can be conducted.

5. Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements, or does not provide a sufficient contribution to the literature.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision is made by the editor based on the complete assessment of the manuscript and review reports.

7. Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, evidence-based, and professional comments.

A review report should distinguish between:

  • major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the study;
  • minor issues that can be corrected without changing the fundamental contribution.

Reviewers should avoid:

  • offensive or discriminatory language;
  • personal criticism of authors;
  • unsupported allegations;
  • demands for unnecessary citations;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • using unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer comments should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors as individuals.

8. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript; and
  2. a detailed response to reviewers.

Authors should respond to every substantive reviewer comment.

A response may indicate:

  • the specific change made;
  • the location of the change in the revised manuscript;
  • an explanation when a recommendation is not adopted.

Authors are expected to respond professionally and substantively to reviewer feedback.

9. Second-Round Review

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when:

  • major methodological changes have been requested;
  • substantial theoretical revisions are required;
  • the editor considers further external assessment necessary.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor when appropriate.

The number of review rounds depends on the quality of the manuscript and the extent of revisions required.

10. Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized Associate Editor after considering:

  • the manuscript's academic quality;
  • reviewer reports;
  • authors' responses;
  • methodological rigor;
  • originality and contribution;
  • ethical compliance;
  • relevance to the journal's scope.

The editor may:

  • accept the manuscript;
  • request minor revision;
  • request major revision;
  • request another round of peer review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation when there are valid academic reasons for a different decision.

11. Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with others;
  • distribute manuscript content;
  • disclose their review assignment;
  • use unpublished information for personal or professional purposes;
  • reproduce or exploit the manuscript's ideas before publication.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the journal formally adopts a different review model.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an assignment if they have a conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their evaluation.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • close personal relationships;
  • current or recent collaboration;
  • institutional affiliation;
  • financial interests;
  • direct competition;
  • supervisory relationships;
  • other circumstances that could compromise objectivity.

Authors are also required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

13. Reviewer Selection and Editorial Independence

DIEC seeks to maintain editorial independence throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewer selection is based on academic expertise rather than:

  • institutional status;
  • nationality;
  • gender;
  • religion;
  • personal relationships;
  • commercial considerations;
  • political considerations.

The editorial office reserves the right to seek additional reviewers when the existing reports are contradictory, insufficiently detailed, or do not adequately address the manuscript.

14. Publication Ethics

DIEC follows recognized principles of publication ethics and expects authors, reviewers, and editors to maintain high standards of research and publication integrity.

Potential misconduct may include:

  • plagiarism;
  • fabrication;
  • falsification;
  • duplicate publication;
  • inappropriate authorship;
  • manipulation of citations;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • manipulation of peer review;
  • other forms of academic misconduct.

Suspected misconduct will be investigated according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.

15. Manuscript Withdrawal During Review

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript during the review process by contacting the editorial office.

However, withdrawal after substantial editorial or peer-review work has been completed may be subject to editorial consideration, particularly when there is no legitimate academic or ethical reason for withdrawal.

A manuscript must not be simultaneously submitted to another journal while it is under review at DIEC.

16. Estimated Review Timeline

DIEC aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining academic rigor.

The indicative process is:

Stage Indicative Timeline
Initial editorial screening 3–7 days
Editorial assessment 5–10 days
Reviewer invitation 3–14 days
First peer review 2–4 weeks
Author revision 1–4 weeks
Second review, if required 1–3 weeks
Final editorial decision 3–7 days
Production and publication According to issue schedule

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

17. Reviewer Recognition

DIEC appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing.

Where appropriate and subject to applicable privacy and confidentiality requirements, the journal may provide reviewers with:

  • acknowledgment of their scholarly contribution;
  • certificates of review;
  • reviewer recognition through appropriate academic platforms;
  • other forms of recognition determined by the editorial office.

Reviewer identities associated with individual manuscripts remain confidential under the double-blind review system.

18. Final Principle

The peer-review process of Darunnajah in Economics (DIEC) is designed to ensure that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, academic significance, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, analytical quality, research integrity, and relevance to contemporary economic issues.

DIEC is committed to conducting peer review in a manner that is fair, confidential, constructive, independent, transparent in procedure, and free from discrimination.

The ultimate objective of the review process is not merely to determine whether a manuscript should be published, but also to improve the quality, clarity, rigor, and contribution of scholarly research in economics and related fields.