Basha'ir: Jurnal Studi Al-Qur'an dan Tafsir conducts a peer review process to maintain the quality and validity of published articles. All submitted articles will be reviewed. Basha'ir conducts  a fast and fair Double Blind-Review  process and also ensures the published articles are of high quality. In doing so, Basha'ir needs reviewers who can provide insightful and useful comments on the submitted manuscripts with a processing time of about 2-3 weeks. Realizing At-Ta'dib as a quality scientific journal depends heavily on the ability of reviewers to be objective, fair, and insightful in evaluating manuscripts. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Ethics

Before a reviewer accepts or declines an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

• Does the article fit your area of expertise? Only accept it if you think you can leave a good review.
• Do you have time? Reviewing can be a tough job – before you commit, make sure you can meet deadlines.
• If you receive it, you must treat the material you receive as a confidential document. This means you can't share it with anyone without the editor's prior permission. Because peer reviews are confidential, you also shouldn't share information about reviews with anyone without permission from editors and authors.

 

Article Review Guidelines

The reviewer review will help the editor decide whether to publish the article or not. Providing overall constructive opinions/comments and general observations of the article is important and explain the judgment given so that editors and writers can fully understand the reasoning behind the comments given. The detailed guide items to be reviewed are:

• Title: Specifications, and clarity
• Abstract: Describing the essence of the article
• Keywords: Describe important concepts from the article
• Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the topic, compatibility of important reasons of the object of study
• Research Methods: Should emphasize on procedures and data analysis for empirical studies
• Result: Accuracy analysis
• Findings: Recent findings, relevance to researchers and scientific contribution of discoveries/ideas to the development of science
• Conclusion: Logical, valid, concise, and clear
• Suggestions: For practical action, development of new theories, and further/continued research
• Bibliography: Recent degrees and references to major book sources. Rule: minimum 60% of interrelated journals or scientific researchers, above 2013. The number of references in the bibliography is at least 15 reference libraries

In the Complete Review Process of the Manuscript, the Reviewer must also consider the following:

• Writing: Is the script easy to follow, that is, has a clear logical development and organization?
• Is the script concise and easy to understand?
• Any parts that should be subtracted, eliminated/expanded/added?
• Pay attention if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are only a few places that aren't well or correctly spoken, make notes to let the author know certain places.
• If there are consistent issues throughout, only pick one or two examples if necessary – don't try and edit them all).
• Abbreviation: Used wisely and structured in such a way that the reader will have no trouble remembering what the abbreviation represents.
• Follow the style, format and other rules of the journal.
• Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

 

Decision Categories

1. Accept Submission: No Revision Required
2. Revision Required : Revisions can be made by the Editor-In-Chief or those assisting
3. Resubmit for review (Major Revision): Revisions can only be made by the author
4. Decline Submission: Unscientific or not quality manuscript