The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether a submitted manuscript aligns with the Focus and Scope of the Journal of Astronomy and Sharia Applications (JASA). The manuscript is also assessed for originality, academic relevance, methodological quality, and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.

Manuscripts that meet the initial criteria are forwarded to the Managing Editor for technical and administrative screening, including verification of manuscript completeness, adherence to the journal template, anonymization, and compliance with the journal’s similarity threshold.

Manuscripts that pass the screening stage are assigned to an appropriate Editor. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript’s subject, methodology, and disciplinary orientation. JASA applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure objectivity, academic rigor, confidentiality, and ethical integrity.

The Journal of Astronomy and Sharia Applications (JASA) maintains rigorous double-blind peer-review standards while promoting an efficient, transparent, and academically responsible editorial process.

Stages of the Peer-Review Process

JASA employs two principal stages of evaluation: editorial screening and external peer review.

Following the technical and administrative check, each submission undergoes an initial editorial assessment to evaluate its relevance to the journal’s Focus and Scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, and suitability for publication.

If the manuscript satisfies the journal’s editorial criteria, the Editor identifies and invites at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. Depending on the topic, reviewers may have expertise in astronomy, Islamic astronomy, Hijri calendrical studies, crescent visibility, prayer-time determination, qibla direction, astronomical instrumentation, computational astronomy, geospatial studies, environmental astronomy, sharia, Islamic law, or related interdisciplinary fields.

As peer review is a voluntary academic service, the duration of the review may vary. Editors actively monitor the review process and communicate with reviewers to support timely completion. During this stage, the manuscript status is recorded as Under Review.

Once the required reviewer reports have been received, the manuscript status is updated to Required Reviews Complete. The Editor then evaluates the reports and communicates the editorial decision to the author. Where revisions are required, authors must respond carefully to each reviewer comment and submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a response document.

After resubmission, the Editor assesses whether the revisions adequately address the reviewers’ comments and editorial recommendations. The revised manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, sent back to the original reviewers, assigned to an additional reviewer, or rejected if it does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

Peer Review of Referred Manuscripts

For manuscripts referred from supporting or collaborating journals, the Editor may consider the existing reviewer reports and editorial assessments. The Editor may accept the previous reviews, request revisions, seek additional external reviews, or decline the manuscript where it falls outside JASA’s Focus and Scope or does not meet the journal’s standards.

Authors will be informed of any additional review requirements.

Summary of the Review Workflow

1. Manuscript submission by the author.
2. Technical and administrative screening.
3. Initial editorial assessment of relevance, originality, and suitability.
4. Similarity and plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent software.
5. Assignment to an appropriate Editor.
6. Double-blind peer review by at least two qualified reviewers.
7. Editorial decision based on the reviewers’ reports.
8. Revision by the author, where required.
9. Resubmission and evaluation of the revised manuscript.
10. Additional review, where necessary.
11. Final editorial decision.
12. Copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, galley approval, and publication.

Editorial Decisions

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s academic and editorial standards and may proceed to publication.

Revisions Required: Minor or moderate revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript must undergo another round of peer review.

Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript is outside JASA’s Focus and Scope or is more appropriate for another journal.

Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards and will not be reconsidered in its current form.

Decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the Editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, the adequacy of the revisions, and compliance with JASA’s editorial policies.

Where reviewer reports are conflicting or additional expertise is required, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer before reaching a final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for determining whether an accepted manuscript will be published and for scheduling it in an appropriate issue. JASA aims to complete the process from submission to publication within approximately 12 weeks, although the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

In accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Misconduct Policy, all submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Peer Review Process Diagram