Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to An-Nisa’ Journal of Gender Studies are required to comply with the journal’s Focus and Scope and Author Guidelines. Submissions must demonstrate adequate academic merit and exhibit novelty or a scholarly contribution relevant to the journal’s thematic coverage.

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an internal screening process conducted by an editor appointed by the editorial board. The assigned editor performs an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript should be forwarded for external peer review or rejected at the desk evaluation stage. The final decision at this stage remains under the authority of the editorial board. Desk rejection may occur for several reasons, including misalignment with the journal’s focus and scope, substantial similarity to previously published works, lack of significant scholarly contribution, fundamental flaws in academic validity, or substandard academic writing. If the editor considers the manuscript potentially relevant and valuable for the journal’s readership, it will be forwarded for external peer review.

All submitted manuscripts must be free from plagiarism and AI-generated content. Authors are encouraged to perform similarity checking using plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate). In addition, the editor will conduct a similarity check using Turnitin prior to further review processes.

Manuscripts considered suitable for review will be evaluated by at least two (2) expert reviewers from the Peer-Reviewers Team. Reviewers provide constructive academic feedback aimed at improving the overall quality of the manuscript. In specific cases, a third reviewer may be assigned to provide additional assessment. The journal employs a double-blind review system. The review process typically requires a minimum of five (5) weeks after the initial editorial decision has been communicated.

Each manuscript is initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief. If deemed appropriate for the thematic orientation of An-Nisa’, the Editor-in-Chief—sometimes in coordination with the Associate Editors and/or members of the Board of Editors—assigns the manuscript to the reviewers. Feedback obtained from the peer review serves as advisory input, while the final decision regarding the manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Upon completion of the peer review process, the Editor-in-Chief will notify the author of the decision. The Editor-in-Chief may decide to:

Accept the manuscript
Reject the manuscript
Reject the manuscript with an option to revise and resubmit
Conditionally accept the manuscript, subject to minor revisions and compliance with An-Nisa’ editorial guidelines, and require the author to sign the publication agreement
Grant final acceptance, after which the manuscript proceeds to the production stage

Published by:

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