The peer review process at MLIJo: Maliki Law and Islamic Journal begins internally, where each submission is first evaluated by a specialized editor designated by the editorial board. This editor assesses the manuscript and decides whether to proceed with external peer review or reject it outright due to various reasons such as overlap with recent publications, divergence from the journal's scope, lack of novel insights, scientific flaws, or unprofessional presentation. If the editor deems the submission relevant and of interest to the journal's readership, it proceeds to external peer review.

We adhere to a 'double-blind' reviewing system, ensuring anonymity between reviewers and authors. Each submission undergoes evaluation by at least two expert reviewers selected by the editorial board. Reviewers are identified based on their expertise, contacted regarding their availability and interest, and provided with the manuscript abstract and reviewing instructions. Once reviewers accept the task, they access the manuscript and submit their critiques through our Open Journal System (OJS).

Upon receiving two comprehensive reviews, the editorial board considers the feedback alongside the paper's potential for revision and its place in the publication queue. Factors such as the novelty of information, clarity of message, and breadth of appeal are weighed in the decision-making process. The editorial board reserves the right to prioritize articles for publication based on these considerations.

Common reasons for rejection post peer review include lack of substantial new contributions or excessively specialized content. Upon acceptance, manuscripts may proceed to publication or require minor or major revisions as suggested by reviewers. Authors are promptly notified of acceptance or rejection, with clear guidance provided for revisions if necessary.