Peer Review Process

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

Publisher: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

1. Purpose and Scope

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication.

The journal implements a double-anonymous peer review system involving a minimum of two independent reviewers for each manuscript that successfully passes the initial editorial screening.

The peer review process is designed to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and academically rigorous evaluations of submitted manuscripts. It supports editorial decisions based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

This policy applies to scholarly manuscripts submitted to ARISTHA in Islamic tourism, halal tourism, religious tourism, hospitality management, sharia tourism law, and related interdisciplinary fields.

2. Peer Review Model

ARISTHA adopts a double-anonymous peer review model, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process, to the extent reasonably practicable.

The journal applies the following principles:

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is assigned to at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, and ability to evaluate the manuscript objectively.
Authors' identifying information is removed from the manuscript files provided to reviewers.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process.
All participants are expected to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, and editorial communications.
Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed and appropriately managed.
Final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to protect anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed because authors may be identifiable through citations, research contexts, publicly available materials, or other manuscript characteristics.

3. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

A complete submission should include the manuscript and the required metadata, including the article title, abstract, keywords, author information, and other information specified in the Author Guidelines.

To support double-anonymous review, authors must prepare a blinded manuscript that excludes identifying details, including:

Author names and institutional affiliations.
Author email addresses and personal contact information.
Acknowledgments that directly identify the authors.
Identifying information in file properties or metadata.
Statements that unnecessarily reveal the authors' identities.

References to the authors' previous publications should be written in a manner that does not unnecessarily compromise anonymity while preserving accurate scholarly citation.

The editorial office may request corrections to submission files before initiating peer review.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor before external peer review.

The initial screening evaluates:

Focus and scope: Relevance to the journal's disciplinary and interdisciplinary coverage.
Originality: Potential contribution to scholarly knowledge.
Manuscript completeness: Compliance with basic submission requirements.
Academic structure: Clarity of research objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions.
Methodological suitability: Appropriateness of the research design and analytical approach.
Publication ethics: Compliance with ethical research and publication standards.
Textual originality: Identification and contextual assessment of potentially problematic text overlap.
Scholarly presentation: Adequacy of academic writing, citations, and references.

Manuscripts that do not meet essential editorial requirements may be declined without external peer review (desk rejection).

A desk rejection must be based on a reasoned editorial assessment and should not be influenced by inappropriate personal, institutional, political, religious, or commercial considerations.

5. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

Reviewer selection considers:

Expertise relevant to the manuscript's research topic and methodology.
Academic or professional competence to evaluate the submitted work.
Independence from the authors and the research under consideration.
Absence of significant conflicts of interest.
Availability to complete the review within the agreed period.
Ability to provide constructive and evidence-based feedback.

For interdisciplinary manuscripts, reviewers may be selected from complementary areas of expertise.

For example, a manuscript concerning halal tourism governance may be evaluated by specialists in tourism management and Islamic law, while a manuscript concerning digital hospitality services may require expertise in hospitality management and information systems.

Reviewers should not be selected solely on the basis of institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or anticipated recommendations.

6. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations professionally, objectively, independently, and confidentially.

Their responsibilities include:

Evaluating the manuscript's originality, academic significance, and relevance.
Assessing the appropriateness of research methods and analytical procedures.
Examining the consistency between research questions, evidence, findings, and conclusions.
Assessing the quality and relevance of the literature review.
Identifying substantive weaknesses and opportunities for improvement.
Providing clear, respectful, and constructive comments.
Supporting significant criticisms with reasoned explanations.
Identifying relevant ethical concerns or suspected research misconduct.
Disclosing potential conflicts of interest.
Maintaining the confidentiality of unpublished manuscript content.

Reviewers must not use confidential manuscript information for personal advantage or require unnecessary citations to their own work.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they lack appropriate expertise, have a significant conflict of interest, or cannot complete the evaluation responsibly.

7. Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts using the following principal criteria.

7.1. Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The manuscript should address a topic relevant to Islamic tourism, halal tourism, religious tourism, hospitality, sharia tourism law, or an appropriate interdisciplinary field.

7.2. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

The manuscript should present a meaningful contribution through new empirical evidence, theoretical development, methodological innovation, critical analysis, or a well-supported synthesis of existing knowledge.

7.3. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

The literature review should be relevant, sufficiently comprehensive for the research purpose, and critically integrated into the study.

7.4. Research Methodology

The research design, sampling or data sources, instruments, analytical methods, and procedures should be appropriate, transparent, and adequately justified.

7.5. Results and Discussion

Findings should be presented clearly and interpreted in relation to the research objectives, relevant literature, and limitations of the study.

7.6. Conclusions and Implications

Conclusions should follow logically from the findings and should not exceed the evidence presented. Theoretical, practical, policy, or managerial implications should be appropriately supported.

7.7. Academic Writing and Presentation

The manuscript should demonstrate coherent organization, clear academic language, appropriate citations, and consistency with the journal's manuscript requirements.

7.8. Research and Publication Ethics

The manuscript should comply with applicable ethical requirements, including originality, proper attribution, research participant protection, transparent reporting, and disclosure of relevant competing interests.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript as a whole and explain the significance of identified strengths and weaknesses.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Following their evaluation, reviewers submit a written assessment and a recommendation to the editor.

Recommendations may include:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for acceptance, subject to any necessary final editorial or production-related adjustments.
Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revisions that can ordinarily be assessed without initiating a new external review round.
Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and further scholarly evaluation.
Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute final editorial decisions.

9. Editorial Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor evaluates the review reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Decisions are based on:

The scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript.
The strength and relevance of reviewers' assessments.
Methodological rigor and reliability of findings.
Compliance with research and publication ethics.
The extent and feasibility of required revisions.
The manuscript's suitability for the journal.

The editor is not required to follow a numerical majority of reviewer recommendations. When reviewers disagree, the editor should consider the substantive reasoning behind their assessments.

Where necessary, the editor may seek an additional independent review or further clarification before reaching a decision.

Editorial decisions must remain consistent with the journal's Editorial Decision Policy.

10. Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and systematically.

A revised submission should include:

A revised manuscript incorporating the necessary changes.
A point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
Clear explanations for recommendations that have not been adopted.
Additional supporting information or documentation when reasonably requested.

Authors should respond respectfully and provide scholarly justification when disagreeing with a reviewer's interpretation or recommendation.

Revision requests do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.

11. Re-evaluation and Additional Review

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the assigned editor to determine whether the concerns raised during review have been adequately addressed.

For revisions requiring further external assessment, the editor may invite the original reviewers or other appropriately qualified independent reviewers.

Additional review may be requested when:

Major methodological concerns remain unresolved.
Substantial changes have been made to the research design or analysis.
Reviewers' assessments reveal significant unresolved disagreements.
New ethical or scientific concerns arise during revision.
Further specialist expertise is required.

The journal may conduct more than one review round when justified by the manuscript's scholarly requirements.

12. Peer Review Confidentiality and Anonymity

All submitted manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content without appropriate authorization.

The journal should use suitable OJS workflows and file-handling procedures to protect author and reviewer identities.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors unnecessarily, and authors must not attempt to identify reviewers through inappropriate means.

Confidentiality obligations continue after a review assignment or editorial process has concluded.

13. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts include:

Close personal or professional relationships.
Direct academic competition.
Recent or ongoing research collaboration.
Financial or commercial interests.
Institutional relationships that create a material risk of bias.
Other circumstances affecting independent judgment.

Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the assignment or inform the editor so that the conflict can be assessed and managed.

Editors with relevant conflicts should delegate responsibility to an appropriately independent editor.

14. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns During Review

Reviewers and editors should report credible concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, inappropriate authorship, manipulated citations, or peer-review irregularities.

Such concerns must be evaluated fairly and without premature conclusions.

The journal may request clarification, supporting evidence, or relevant documentation and may refer serious matters to an appropriate institution or authority when warranted.

The handling of suspected misconduct must follow the journal's Publication Ethics and Allegation of Misconduct policies.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their assessments.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, and review materials must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

AI-assisted tools must not replace independent scholarly judgment or be used to generate unsupported review conclusions.

Any authorized use of AI assistance must comply with the journal's applicable confidentiality, research integrity, and Generative AI policies.

16. Review Timelines and Communication

ARISTHA seeks to conduct peer review in a timely, fair, and academically responsible manner.

Review invitations should communicate the expected review period, and reviewers should notify the editor when they are unable to meet an agreed deadline.

Authors should receive relevant editorial decisions and reviewer feedback through the journal's official communication channels.

Actual processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the need for additional evaluation.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed review completion period.

Any formal review-time targets adopted by the journal should be communicated accurately and reviewed against actual editorial performance.

17. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they identify a substantive factual error, procedural concern, or significant new evidence.

Appeals should provide a clear explanation and supporting information.

Where appropriate, the appeal should be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.

The journal may uphold, modify, or reconsider a decision following an appropriate assessment.

An appeal does not automatically reverse an editorial decision or guarantee further external review.

18. Post-Acceptance Editorial Processing

Once a manuscript receives final acceptance, it proceeds to the journal's subsequent editorial and production stages.

These may include:

Copyediting.
Language and reference consistency checks.
Layout and typesetting.
Proofreading.
Final publication preparation.

Acceptance does not remove the authors' responsibility to address factual errors or comply with applicable publication ethics requirements.

If substantial integrity concerns emerge after acceptance, the journal may reconsider the publication decision in accordance with its ethical policies.

19. Editorial Independence and Quality Assurance

ARISTHA is committed to ensuring that peer review remains independent from inappropriate institutional, financial, personal, or commercial influence.

The publisher, Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, supports the journal's commitment to objective scholarly evaluation and responsible editorial governance.

The journal may periodically review its peer review procedures, reviewer guidance, and editorial practices to improve transparency, consistency, fairness, and academic quality.

20. Policy Review and Updates

This Peer Review Process Policy establishes the journal's formal framework for the scientific evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The journal may revise this policy in response to developments in scholarly publishing standards, editorial experience, ethical guidance, and operational requirements.

All participants in the peer review process are expected to comply with the applicable provisions of this policy.

Peer Review Model: Double-anonymous peer review

Minimum Number of Reviewers: Two independent reviewers per manuscript that passes initial editorial screening

Final Editorial Authority: Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor