Peer Review Process

Journal of Kitab and Knowledge of Pesantren (JKKP) adheres to a double-blind peer-review system that ensures fairness, accuracy, and high academic standards in every published article. In this system, reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process to prevent potential bias related to institutional affiliation, country of origin, or previous publications. All manuscripts are evaluated solely based on their scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to pesantren studies, Islamic education, and classical Islamic scholarship. This review policy follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Team first screens every newly submitted manuscript to ensure compliance with the journal’s focus and scope covering studies of kitab kuning, Islamic education, pesantren epistemology, and integration of Islamic and modern sciences as well as adherence to formatting, bibliographic, and ethical standards. The journal employs Turnitin software to check for plagiarism; manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% will be automatically rejected. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements will be declined without external review, and the authors will be notified via email. Manuscripts deemed suitable will proceed to the next review stage.

Step 2: Peer Review (2–4 Months)

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a Section Editor, who will send them to at least two qualified reviewers—one external reviewer and one internal editor—with relevant expertise for evaluation under the double-blind review system. The reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical and methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, and clarity of presentation. Based on their assessments, the reviewers will recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accepted as it is.
• Accepted with minor revision.
• Accepted with major revision.
• Rejected.

If reviewers’ reports differ significantly, the Section Editor may invite an additional reviewer to ensure a balanced and fair evaluation before deciding.

Step 3: Revision Stage (2 Weeks)

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions within the specified time frame. The Editorial Team will then re-evaluate the revised manuscript. If further improvement is needed, the Section Editor may request additional revisions.

Step 4: Final Decision

After the revision stage, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with Section Editors and the Editorial Board, makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection based on reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s overall improvement. Once accepted, a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) will be issued to the author, and the manuscript will proceed to the final layout and publication stages.

The entire review process, from submission to publication, typically takes two months to one year, depending on the complexity of revisions, the responsiveness of authors, and the journal’s publication schedule. The Editor-in-Chief determines the sequence and timing of publication, considering the submission date, thematic relevance, and diversity of authorship.