Hasanah in Economics (HIEC) applies a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to Islamic economics, general economics, finance, banking, business economics, and related fields.
Under the double-blind review model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach is intended to support objective, independent, and fair evaluation of scholarly work.
HIEC is committed to maintaining academic integrity, editorial independence, confidentiality, and transparency in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles, including the guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editor or editorial team before being sent for external peer review.
The initial screening evaluates:
Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
Originality and relevance of the research contribution.
Compliance with the Author Guidelines.
Completeness of the manuscript and submission metadata.
Appropriateness of the research methodology and presentation.
Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at this stage or returned to authors for preliminary corrections.
Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and ability to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript.
The editorial team seeks to avoid conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts that could affect their impartiality.
HIEC aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript sent for external peer review. The editor may seek an additional opinion when reviewer recommendations substantially differ or further assessment is necessary.
The journal follows these procedures to maintain the double-blind review process:
The editorial team removes author-identifying information from the manuscript file before review.
Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and relevant evaluation instructions.
Reviewers assess the manuscript independently.
Reviewers submit their recommendations and comments through the journal's editorial system or another authorized channel.
The editor evaluates the reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.
Authors should ensure that their manuscripts do not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or document metadata that unnecessarily reveal their identities. Self-citations should be presented objectively and in accordance with academic conventions.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria:
Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the manuscript offers an original contribution to economic knowledge.
Relevance and Scope: The alignment of the research with the aims and scope of HIEC.
Literature Review: The relevance, quality, and critical use of existing scholarly literature.
Theoretical Contribution: The adequacy of the conceptual or theoretical foundation.
Methodological Rigor: The suitability and transparency of the research design, data, and analytical procedures.
Results and Discussion: The clarity, validity, and interpretation of findings.
Academic and Practical Implications: The significance of the findings for economic theory, business practice, financial institutions, or public policy.
References and Presentation: The accuracy of citations, organization, academic language, and adherence to author guidelines.
Research Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, data integrity, and disclosure requirements.
For studies in Islamic economics, reviewers may also assess the appropriate use of Islamic economic concepts, sharia principles, relevant scholarly sources, and the consistency of interpretations with the research objectives.
Following peer review, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revisions, subject to final editorial checks.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before a final decision.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvement in its argumentation, methodology, analysis, or presentation.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for originality, relevance, rigor, ethical compliance, or scholarly contribution.
These recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the editor or editor-in-chief, based on the reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and journal policies.
A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the changes required.
When revisions are requested, authors must submit:
A revised manuscript addressing the editorial and reviewer comments.
A point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Clear identification of substantial changes, where requested.
Supporting information or supplementary materials when necessary.
If an author disagrees with a reviewer's recommendation, the response should provide a clear, professional, and evidence-based explanation.
Authors must submit revisions within the deadline communicated by the editorial office. Extensions may be requested from the editor when justified.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished information or use manuscript content for personal, professional, or research advantage.
Reviewers must inform the editor of any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the assignment when impartial evaluation cannot reasonably be maintained.
Editors must also manage conflicts of interest and, where necessary, arrange independent editorial handling.
These principles are consistent with the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
HIEC does not tolerate plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated findings, or other forms of research misconduct.
The editorial team may use similarity-screening tools and investigate concerns identified by editors, reviewers, readers, or other parties.
When potential misconduct is identified, the journal may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors and take appropriate action in accordance with its publication ethics policies.
Possible actions include returning the manuscript for clarification, rejecting the submission, correcting a published article, or retracting an article when warranted.
Further information on publication ethics is available through COPE's official guidance.
HIEC seeks to conduct peer review in a timely and responsible manner. Review duration may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for additional evaluations, and the extent of revisions required.
The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to authors through the journal's official communication channels.
The journal should publish specific target timelines only when they reflect its actual editorial workflow and can be maintained consistently.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe an editorial decision resulted from a factual error, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a significant procedural irregularity.
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration, supported by relevant evidence.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, reviewer behavior, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics should be directed to the editor-in-chief or an appropriate independent editorial representative.
Appeals are assessed independently where practicable. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
A manuscript may be accepted for publication only after the editorial team is satisfied that it meets the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, and technical requirements.
Accepted manuscripts may undergo language editing, copyediting, formatting, reference verification, and proofreading before publication.
The corresponding author may be asked to review the final proofs and confirm that the manuscript has been prepared accurately for publication.
The journal retains editorial responsibility for the final publication decision.
HIEC uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) to support scholarly journal management and editorial workflows.
General information about the platform is available in the PKP Documentation.
For further information regarding the peer-review process, please contact:
Hasanah in Economics (HIEC)
Publisher: CV. Gerasi Insan Nusantara
Website: https://hasanah.gerakanedukasi.com/index.php/HIEC
Email: hasanahineconomiceditor@gmail.com
ADDITIONAL MENU
SUBMIT ARTICLE
