1. Initial Evaluation

• All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening to assess their alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, compliance with author guidelines, completeness of submission requirements, originality, and adherence to publication ethics.
• Manuscripts are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin in accordance with the journal’s Plagiarism Policy. Manuscripts with a similarity index of 15% or higher are subject to further editorial assessment and may be returned to the authors for revision. A similarity percentage alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism.
• Manuscripts that fail to meet the initial requirements may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection) or returned to the authors for preliminary revisions. Manuscripts that meet the requirements are forwarded to the designated editor for academic assessment before proceeding to peer review.
  
  

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

• An-Nisa’ Journal of Gender Studies employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.
• Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected based on their academic expertise, relevance to the manuscript’s subject area, and absence of conflicts of interest. Review invitations are sent through the journal’s online system or via email.
• During the first review round (Review Round 1), the two reviewers may assess the manuscript concurrently and independently. Their reports are submitted through the journal’s online system and serve as the basis for editorial consideration.
• Reviewers are allocated three to four weeks from acceptance of the review assignment to complete their evaluations. Extensions may be granted upon request, subject to the editor’s approval. If a reviewer is unavailable, the editor may appoint a replacement reviewer.
  
  

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

• All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information without prior written authorization from the editor.
• Reviewers must maintain anonymity and conduct their evaluations objectively and professionally, free from discrimination and personal interests.
• The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools must comply with the journal’s publication ethics policies. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to external AI services without prior written authorization from the editor. Any authorized use of AI must be disclosed.
  
  

4. Review Criteria

• Relevance, Originality, and Scholarly Contribution: The relevance of the research topic to the journal’s aims and scope, the originality and novelty of the study, and its contribution to interdisciplinary gender studies within Muslim societies and broader global contexts.
• Research Problem and Scholarly Positioning: The clarity of the research problem, critical synthesis of previous studies, identification of the research gap, formulation of research objectives, and coherence of the main argument.
• Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness of the research design and approach, transparency of data collection and analysis procedures, reliability or trustworthiness of the evidence, and consideration of research ethics.
• Quality of Findings and Discussion: The clarity and depth of the findings, adequacy of supporting evidence, critical theoretical interpretation, engagement with relevant previous studies, and articulation of scholarly and practical implications.
• Coherence, Conclusions, and Academic Standards: The consistency between research objectives, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusions; the clarity of scholarly contributions and research limitations; the relevance and currency of references; and compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and publication ethics.

5. Feedback and Constructive Criticism

• Reviewers are expected to provide critical, objective, and constructive evaluations supported by scholarly arguments and evidence, while avoiding personal criticism and discriminatory remarks.
• Reviewers may recommend relevant literature to strengthen the manuscript without requiring unnecessary citations. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the final outcome.
  
  

6. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

• Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment and must decline or withdraw from the review process if their independence or impartiality may be compromised.
• Editors are responsible for assessing disclosed conflicts of interest. Editors with conflicts of interest concerning a manuscript must transfer responsibility for its evaluation and editorial decision-making to another independent editor.
  
  

7. Editorial Decisions, Revision, and Re-review

• Following Review Round 1, the editor evaluates both reviewers' reports and issues a decision on acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional assessment from an independent reviewer.
• Authors requested to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.
• Following the first revision (Author Revision 1), the editor conducts an editorial reassessment. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the editor, whereas substantive revisions may proceed to Review Round 2, involving the original reviewers or replacement reviewers where necessary.
• During Review Round 2, reviewers assess the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses to previous comments. Where both reviewers are involved, their evaluations may again be conducted concurrently and independently. Additional revisions or review rounds may be undertaken when academically necessary.
• The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and the revisions made. All editorial decisions are communicated to the authors through the journal’s online system.
  
  

8. Final Acceptance, Production, and Publication

• Manuscripts receiving final acceptance proceed to the production stage, which includes copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and preparation for publication.
• Authors may be requested to review the final version of their articles before publication. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the publication process and the assignment of accepted articles to the appropriate journal issue.
• All articles are published under the journal’s open access policy, in accordance with its applicable licensing terms and copyright provisions.

Published by:

Institute for Research and Community Service,
Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember, East Java, Indonesia.

An-Nisa Journal of Gender Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.