FIKROTUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Manajemen Islam applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution of published articles.

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The editorial team assesses the manuscript in relation to:

1. The journal's Focus and Scope;
2. Originality and scholarly significance;
3. Methodological adequacy;
4. Ethical considerations;
5. Manuscript completeness;
6. Compliance with the Author Guidelines; and
7. Academic citation and referencing.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before external peer review.

The journal may use appropriate similarity-detection tools as part of the initial screening process. Similarity reports are interpreted contextually and do not, by themselves, constitute a determination of plagiarism. Suspected cases of plagiarism or other publication misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are assigned to at least three independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, scholarly experience, and relevance to the manuscript under review.

Reviewers should normally be affiliated with institutions different from those of the authors and must not have a conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluation.

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review procedure.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the scholarly standards of FIKROTUNA.

The review normally considers:

1. Originality and significance of the research;
2. Clarity of the research problem and objectives;
3. Engagement with relevant theoretical and scholarly literature;
4. Methodological rigor and transparency;
5. Adequacy and validity of the evidence;
6. Quality of data analysis and interpretation;
7. Consistency between findings and conclusions;
8. Ethical considerations;
9. Contribution to scholarship; and
10. Clarity and coherence of academic presentation.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Reviewers should treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents and must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and should decline an assignment when their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Following the completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the editorial decision based on the reviewer reports, the scholarly quality of the manuscript, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial standards.

The possible editorial decisions are:

1. Accept;
2. Minor Revision;
3. Major Revision; or
4. Reject.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, request an additional review, or conduct further editorial assessment before making a final decision.

The editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments are communicated to the authors through the journal's online submission system.

When revisions are required, authors should revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Authors should provide a clear response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. Changes in the revised manuscript should be identifiable to facilitate editorial and reviewer assessment.

Authors are normally given up to two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. Extensions may be granted by the editor upon reasonable request.

Manuscripts requiring substantial revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The editor may also request additional review where necessary.

After the manuscript has successfully completed the peer-review and revision process and has received final editorial approval, it proceeds to the publication stage.

The publication process may include:

1. Copyediting;
2. Language and consistency checking;
3. Formatting and layout;
4. Author proofreading; and
5. Final publication.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not necessarily mean immediate publication. Publication is completed after the necessary editorial and production processes have been finalized.

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy concerning the use of AI-assisted tools during peer review.

Confidential manuscripts, reviewer materials, and unpublished information must not be uploaded to external AI systems or used in ways that could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

The journal seeks to conduct the peer-review process efficiently. However, the duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need to identify replacement reviewers, and the extent of revisions required.

The editorial team may appoint additional reviewers when necessary to ensure a fair and sufficiently informed editorial decision.