MAQASIDI: Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum conducting a peer review process to maintain the quality and validity of published articles. All submitted articles will be reviewed. The editorial team of MAQASIDI: Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum conducting  a fast and fair Single Blind-Review process and also ensures that the published articles are of high quality. In doing so, MAQASIDI: Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum needs reviewers who can provide insightful and useful comments on the submitted manuscript with a processing time of about 4-5 weeks. Realizing MAQASIDI: Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum as a quality scientific journal is highly dependent 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)

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

1. Does the article fit your area of expertise? Accept only if you feel you can leave a good review.
2. Do you have time? Reviewing can be a daunting task – before you commit, make sure you can meet deadlines.
3. If you receive it, you must treat the material you receive as a confidential document. You can't share it with anyone without the editor's prior permission. Because peer reviews are confidential, you should also not share information about reviews with anyone without permission from editors and authors.

Article Review Guidelines

Reviewer reviews will help editors decide whether to publish articles or not. Providing an overall constructive opinion/comment and general observation of the article is important and explain the judgment given so that editors and authors can fully understand the reasons behind the comments given. The detailed guidelines for the items to be reviewed are:

1. Title: Specifications, and clarity
2. Abstract: Describe the essence of the article
3. Keywords: Describe the important concepts of the article
4. Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the topic, compatibility of important reasons for the research object
5. Research Methods: Should emphasize procedures and data analysis for empirical studies
6. Results: Accuracy analysis
7. Findings: Recent findings, relevance to researchers, and scientific contributions of discoveries/ideas to the development of science
8. Conclusion: Logical, valid, concise, and clear
9. Suggestions: For practical action, development of new theories, and or follow-up research
10. Bibliography: Recent degrees and references to major book sources. Rule: minimum 70% of interrelated scientific journals or research. The number of references in the bibliography is at least 20 reference libraries.

In the process of reviewing a manuscript completely, the reviewer should also consider the following:

1. Writing: Is the script easy to follow, i.e., has a logical development and clear organization?
2. Is the script concise and easy to understand?
3. Any parts that should be reduced, Removed/expanded/added?
4. Notice if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are only a few places that are not pronounced well or correctly, make a note to let the writer know the specific places.
5. If there are consistent issues throughout, just pick one or two examples if necessary - don't try and edit them all).
6. Abbreviations: Used wisely and arranged in such a way that the reader will have no trouble remembering what the abbreviation represents.
7. Follow the style, format, and other rules of the journal.
8. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

Categories Results

1. Accept Submission: No Revision Required
2. Revision Required (minor revisions): Revisions can be made by the Editor-In-Chief or those who help
3. Resubmit for review (Major Revision): Revisions can only be made by the author
4. Decline Submission: Unscientific manuscript quality