1. Log into the “Manuscript Handling System” by entering your username and password.

2. Click “Reviewer” on the upper menu.

3. Click “Articles” (“Submissions”) on the reviewer page.

4. You will now see the title and status of the article you have been requested to review. Click the magnifier icon found under “Show” on the left-hand side.

5. On the new page that appears you will find information concerning the article and its English and Turkish abstracts. At the bottom, there is a question as to whether or not you accept to review the article. To accept, click “I would like to review the article” in the green-shaded area.

6. Once you accept to review, you can download the Article file. You can also review the article by using the evaluation form that will appear on the same page.

7. While filling in the form, if you click “Save” without completing your evaluation, you can return to the form later to complete the remaining sections.

8. Once you fill in the whole form and your evaluation is complete, click “Save and Finish”.

Please e-mail jie@asbu.edu.tr regarding any queries regarding the system.

Journal of Islamic Economics publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research papers from all areas of Islamic Studies. Therefore, we are looking for articles that are more than merely correct; they must add significantly to the field, and we kindly ask you to bear this in mind when reviewing an article for us.

You will receive an e-mail invitation from the journal that includes the manuscript title, abstract, names of the authors, invitation response links and a deadline for submitting your report. In addition to your availability, please consider whether the topic of this work is within your field of expertise and whether you have any conflict of interest with the authors (see our peer review policy for further details about conflict of interest). Please let us know if you are accepting or declining our invitation to review as soon as possible to minimise delay for the authors. To tell us whether you can review the article, there is no need to log in; simply click on the appropriate invitation response link in the e-mail.

If you are able to review the article but require more time to prepare a report, we are happy to consider an extension; please contact the journal directly to request this. A full-text PDF of the manuscript is also available on request if you require this additional information to decide whether you are able to review the article. If you are unable to review, we would be grateful if you would suggest an alternative referee. In addition, if you are unavailable for a period of time (months) or would like to avoid receiving any more review requests, please send this information with your declined response and we will update your contact record as appropriate.

When you click on the 'Agreed' link in the original invitation e-mail you will automatically receive another e-mail containing a direct link to view online the full PDF of the manuscript and the referee report form, with a deadline for submitting your report. You can also view the PDF and report form by logging in to your referee centre. As before, if you require an extension, please contact the journal directly.

If you have not acted as a referee before, we recommend that you consult our 'Introduction to refereeing' guide.

The report form includes a quality assessment section, a question section, a recommendation section, a box to insert confidential comments intended for the Editors only, and a separate box for comments that will be sent to the author. You may also upload a file containing your comments. Please remember to use appropriate language in your comments for the author. There is no need to mention minor grammatical errors in your report, but listing errors in formulae or notation, or typographical errors which influence scientific rigour, is very valuable. The buttons below the article title on the score sheet allow you to directly view the PDF, supplementary data or abstract. Specific guidelines on completing and submitting your report are also available via the instructions tab.

On the report form, you will be asked to rate the quality of the paper.

Originality. Is the work relevant and novel? Does it add significantly to results that are already published? Is this paper likely to be cited in the future?

Scientific rigour. Is the paper scientifically correct and robust? Are the scientific arguments and interpretations accurate and consistent with the results presented?

Significance. What impact do you think this paper will have on the field and surrounding areas? Why should this work be published?

When preparing your report, it will be helpful to the author(s) and the Editors if you could consider the following key points related to scientific quality and presentation. The motivation and relevance of the research are particularly important, and the paper should fall within the scope of the journal. Also, if you think the work could be published after revision, which areas require improvement to bring the paper up to the required quality standards? If you think the work should be rejected, why have you made this recommendation?

Is this paper scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct?

Is the work relevant and novel and does it add significantly to results that are already published?

What impact do you think this paper will have in the field? How timely is this paper?

Has the author made reference to the most recent and most appropriate work?

Is the title adequate and appropriate?

Is the paper well written and the work clearly communicated? Please note we will edit upon acceptance and correct any grammatical or typographical errors.

Does the abstract contain essential information about the paper? Is it complete by itself and suitable for direct inclusion in an abstracting service?

Can the paper be shortened without detriment to the content? Are the text and mathematics brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what could be omitted.

Are diagrams and tables clear and essential, and are captions informative?

Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion summarising what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

You will be asked to give your recommendation, which should be supported by your written comments for the author (see below). Please note that if major revisions are required, the paper should be rejected and the authors may be asked to resubmit as a new paper once they have made the revisions.

Referees are asked to concentrate on making well-substantiated comments about the originality and significance of the work, in addition to checking and commenting on the scientific rigour of the results. This information is essential for evaluating the quality level and for identifying contributions that represent a significant advance in the field. While a detailed summary of the paper is not necessary, constructive comments on these key areas are highly valued.

Occasionally we receive reports which are very short and do not provide evidence to support the final recommendation. On receipt of such reports, we may contact the referee to request some additional comments, both to assist us with assessment and to assist the author with any potential revision.

When two referees submit conflicting reports, we may consult a senior referee or Board Member to act as an adjudicator and submit a report. This additional report and advice will be used to inform our decision. Following adjudication, if your recommendation is overruled, we will inform you. We will be happy to provide you with an anonymous copy of the other referee report for your reference on request.

Revision stage

Depending on the recommendation and comments in your report, we may also invite you to review the revised manuscript. Please note that when reporting on a revision, we expect you to read the author's reply to your comments and check the changes in their revised manuscript, then decide if the revision is now suitable for publication. It is generally not appropriate to request additional changes (not mentioned in your original report) at this stage. If the authors fail to answer your criticisms, please check the 'Unsatisfactory Revision' box on the report form and describe the areas that were not addressed in the revision in your comments. Please also note that we do not expect the review process to exceed more than one round of revisions, except for minor final corrections. Whether or not we invite you to review the revision, we will inform you of our final decision on the manuscript. We are also willing to provide the other referee reports (anonymized) for your reference on request.

You will receive an acknowledgement e-mail when we receive your report on the original or revised manuscript. Thank you for your help in reviewing papers for IOP Publishing. We hope that you find our refereeing procedure straightforward and would welcome your comments on any improvements we could make in our service to referees and to authors. If you require a formal confirmation of your service as a referee, please contact the journal directly.

The Publons Academy is a practical peer review training course for early career researchers, developed together with expert academics and editors in order to give you the core competencies and skills needed for a peer reviewer.

Peer review is at the heart of the research. It ensures the quality and integrity of published literature. Peer review helps us discover cures, develop innovative technologies, and realise human potential faster by weeding out misleading research and enhancing the work of others.

Without peer review, science and research would progress at a glacial rate. It would be harder to differentiate between legitimate breakthrough discoveries and misleading research that can delay our pursuit of truth and knowledge.

Researchers understand the power and importance of great peer review. Unfortunately, in today's publish-or-perish world, it becomes harder and harder to find the time to commit to reviewing.

Publons is bringing balance back to the system. We turn peer review into a measurable indicator of a researcher's expertise and contributions to their field.

With Publons, researchers can effortlessly track each review they perform across the world's journals, demonstrating how often top editors rely on their expertise to vet novel research.

When we acknowledge the importance of peer review contributions, there is greater incentive to review and to review better.

With more experts committed to evaluating the world's research through peer review, it becomes easier for editors to get a review done. This speeds up the peer review process and helps us to communicate breakthrough research to the world faster.

Raising the status of review is just the first step. We’re also committed to:

• Training the next generation of expert reviewers

• Assessing the quality and performance of peer reviews around the world

• Helping editors find the best reviewers faster, rapidly increasing the pace of scholarly communication

• Stimulating discussion and insight around research after publication.