Every manuscript submitted to El-'Adl is evaluated through several editorial and peer-review stages before a final publication decision is made. The review process is designed to ensure that published articles contribute meaningfully to the development of Islamic Economic Law and related scholarly fields.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The submitted manuscript must comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, Article Template, Publication Ethics, and other applicable editorial requirements.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

After submission, the editorial team performs an initial administrative and technical examination. At this stage, the manuscript is checked for completeness and conformity with the journal's submission requirements.

The editorial team may examine, among other matters:

• Compliance with the journal's article template;
• Completeness of manuscript components;
• Consistency of citations and references;
• Compliance with manuscript formatting requirements;
• Removal of author-identifying information from the blinded manuscript;
• Readability and academic language quality;
• Compliance with ethical and originality requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction before proceeding to substantive editorial evaluation.

3. Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the administrative examination are evaluated by the editor for their suitability for El-'Adl: Islamic Economic Law Review.

The editorial screening considers:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
• Originality and significance of the research problem;
• Clarity of research objectives or legal questions;
• Adequacy of theoretical and legal foundations;
• Appropriateness of the research or analytical approach;
• Potential contribution to Islamic Economic Law scholarship;
• Overall academic quality of the manuscript.

4. Assignment to Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly competence, relevant expertise, independence, and their ability to provide an objective academic assessment.

The journal applies a double-blind review system. Therefore:

5. Criteria for Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. The assessment normally focuses on the following scholarly dimensions:

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide comments, recommendations, and constructive suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations may indicate that the manuscript is suitable for publication, requires revision, requires substantial improvement, or is not suitable for publication. The reviewers' recommendations serve as important scholarly input for the editor but do not independently determine the final editorial decision.

7. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address reviewer and editor comments carefully, systematically, and academically.

Authors should revise the manuscript where appropriate and provide clear responses explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. If an author does not follow a particular recommendation, an academically justified explanation should be provided.

Revised manuscripts may be examined again by the editor and, where necessary, returned for further peer-review evaluation.

8. Re-evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

The editorial team evaluates whether the revised manuscript has adequately addressed the issues identified during peer review.

Depending on the extent and significance of the revisions, the manuscript may be assessed directly by the editor or returned to reviewers for further evaluation. Additional revision may be requested when scholarly concerns remain unresolved.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made after considering the quality of the manuscript, reviewer evaluations, author revisions, conformity with journal policies, originality, and the manuscript's contribution to the field.

Editorial decisions may include:

10. Copyediting and Production

Manuscripts that have been formally accepted proceed to the editorial production stage, which may include copyediting, language checking, reference verification, layout preparation, metadata checking, and proofreading.

At this stage, corrections should normally focus on factual, typographical, grammatical, formatting, and production-related matters rather than substantial changes to the accepted scholarly content.

11. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscript content may not be disclosed, distributed, cited, reproduced, or used for personal advantage before publication.

Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflict of interest that could interfere with an objective and independent evaluation of the manuscript. When a significant conflict exists, another qualified reviewer or editor should handle the manuscript.

12. Ethical Issues Identified During Review

If reviewers or editors identify indications of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, improper authorship, serious citation problems, unethical research practices, or other forms of scholarly misconduct, the matter may be investigated before an editorial decision is issued.

The journal may request clarification, supporting evidence, original data, or other relevant documentation when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly publication process.

13. Summary of the Review Workflow