Peer Review Process

Halal International Journal is a journal that implements the peer review process. All articles submitted to this journal will be reviewed in a closed (double-blind review) by a minimum of two reviewers (associate editor). The response from the reviewer will be the consideration for the editor (editorial board) to determine whether an article can be published (accepted), published if revised or discarded (rejected). The returned articles must be upgraded by the authors. After the authors make improvements in accordance with feedback from the reviewer, the author should resend (re-submit) and will be reviewed again. To avoid plagiarism all articles submitted to Halal International Journal will be checked with anti-plagiarism software. The editor's final decision on the manuscript is decided by the Editor in Chief.

 

Reviewer Guidelines

In reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should pay attention to the following:

Presentation

Does the paper relate a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly presented?

Writing

Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length

What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

Title

Does the title concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.

Abstract

Does the abstract consist of 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result or finding; and 4) conclusion?

Introduction

1. Clearly describing and respectively:
2. The background of the study;
3. State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
4. Gap analysis, novelty statement;
5. Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
6. Approach to resolve the problem; and
7. The aim of the study.

Methods

1. The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
2. Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
3. Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;

Results and Discussion

1. The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into a table or figure and given a supportive description which easy to follow.
2. The result related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
3. The author describes the result of the study consistent with what other investigators have reported or there any differences.
4. The author provides interpretation scientifically for each of the results or findings presented.
5. The author describes the implications of the research.
6. The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
7. The author describes further need/areas for research or expansion of ideas.

Conclusion 

1. Answer the objectives of the research;
2. Implication or recommendation (optional).