Reviewers Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the JSEF: Journal of Sustainable Economic Futures undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Team to ensure thematic relevance and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with the author guidelines and journal template, and adherence to academic writing standards. Manuscripts that pass this preliminary review are forwarded to reviewers for substantive evaluation. Reviewers are requested to conduct an objective, critical, and constructive assessment based on the criteria outlined below.

1. Title

The title should accurately reflect the focus, scope, and main argument of the article. Reviewers are asked to assess whether:

  • The title is concise, clear, and informative.
  • The title is not merely descriptive but reflects the article’s main argument or key findings.
  • Unnecessary terms and abbreviations are avoided.
  • The title clearly indicates the article’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

2. Abstract

The abstract must concisely reflect the entire content of the article and be written in a single paragraph of 150–250 words. The abstract should include the following elements (not necessarily in this order):

  • The research background or problem statement.
  • The objective or focus of the study.
  • The research methodology.
  • The main findings.
  • The central argument and the scholarly contributions or implications of the study.

Reviewers should ensure that the abstract not only describes the topic but also explicitly states the article’s findings and contributions.

3. Keywords

Keywords serve indexing and academic search purposes. Reviewers should assess whether the keywords:

  • Consist of 3–6 words or phrases.
  • Represent the main concepts discussed in the article.
  • Are relevant to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Avoid overly general, vague, or ambiguous terms.

4. Introduction

The introduction should contextualize the study and clearly position the article within relevant academic debates. It must be logically structured, appropriately proportioned in length, and conclude with a clear articulation of the article's central argument.

Ideally, the introduction should be presented in 4–6 paragraphs covering:

  • A general issue in a global or Muslim-world context related to the research problem.
  • The relevance of the issue within the specific context of the study (the material object) and an explanation of why it warrants scholarly attention.
  • A brief review of key relevant literature, including a typology and discussion of major scholarly arguments.
  • A clear identification of the research gap and the article’s position within the existing literature (state of the art), including an explicit statement of the article's main argument or contribution.
  • A statement of the research objectives and/or research questions, or a brief explanation of the article's structure (optional).

5. Research Methodology

The methodology section should clearly and operationally explain how the research was conducted and how the data were analyzed. Reviewers must ensure that the methodological approach is appropriate to the research objectives and sufficiently robust to support the article’s argument.

The methodology should be presented in 2–3 paragraphs and include:

  • The type and approach of the research, including the study’s duration and location, as well as a justification for the chosen method and research subject.
  • Data sources and data collection techniques, including the number and characteristics of informants, methods of observation, and types of documentary sources utilized.
  • Data analysis techniques and the theoretical or analytical frameworks employed.

6. Results and Discussion

The Results and Discussion section constitutes the core of the article and must present an in-depth and coherent analysis. Reviewers should assess whether this section:

  • Is clearly aligned with and relevant to the research objectives and/or questions outlined in the introduction.
  • Presents and discusses findings systematically and thematically, supported by tables, figures, or other relevant visual materials rather than raw data.
  • Interprets findings rigorously by engaging with relevant theories, previous studies, and concepts of studies.
  • Clearly explains the theoretical, practical, and legal implications of the research findings.

7. Conclusion

The conclusion should synthesize the analysis and reaffirm the article’s contribution. It should be reflective and argumentative rather than merely summarize the discussion.

The conclusion should be presented in 2–3 paragraphs and should:

  • Summarize the main findings in relation to the research objectives or questions without reiterating the entire discussion.
  • Highlight the article’s scholarly contributions and its implications for the studies.
  • Acknowledge the limitations of the research and provide recommendations for future studies (optional).

8. Bibliography

The reference list should demonstrate both the breadth and depth of the literature relevant to the research focus. Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  • All works cited in the text appear in the reference list.
  • References include relevant primary and secondary sources.
  • Scholarly works from reputable academic publications are used appropriately, comprising approximately 50% or more of the total references.
  • Recent literature (approximately from the last 10 years) is included and relevant.

Reviewer Recommendation

Based on the overall assessment, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission
  • Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Resubmit Elsewhere
  • Decline Submission
  • See Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive comments to support their recommendations.

Note: These reviewer guidelines may also serve as a reference for authors in preparing and revising manuscripts to ensure compliance with the academic standards of the JSEF: Journal of Sustainable Economic Futures.