The Journal on Education in Muslim Societies (JEMS) seeks scholarly and critical analyses of topics pertinent to the education sector including but not limited to pedagogies, teacher practices, leadership, and policy as it relates to the conditions and status of education in Muslim societies and communities. Please note that Muslim societies are not limited to the regions within the Middle East and North Africa. The guiding premise of the Journal is that education serves more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills but the enhancement of the holistic aspects of individuals and societies. JEMS seeks manuscripts in subject areas such as comparative education, youth and youth development, curriculum reform, early childhood education, higher education, as well as others. The journal has no disciplinary or methodological bias.

 

Peer Review Policy

All articles are subject to rigorous double-blind peer review.

In your review, please consider whether the paper is of consistently high quality and whether it:

• Addresses issues/questions of significance and interest to a wide audience (even when the focus is on a situation in individual countries).
• Makes a clear contribution to the field.
• Is well-structured, clearly written and develops a cogent argument, is original, and up-to-date.
• Offers fair and accurate reviews of relevant literature and extends scholarly debates.
• When based on empirical data, clearly introduces and adequately refers to this material throughout; and contains adequate critical discussion of the methodology adopted.
• Includes interpretations and conclusions that are justified by the evidence presented in the manuscript.
• Includes an abstract that encourages readers to read the full article.

 

Recommendations

Please note that reviewers’ verbatim comments are normally sent directly to the authors. Please ensure that your overview and line-by-line comments are constructive and respectful to the authors and their work.

Please indicate which of the four categories below you recommend:

• Full acceptance – The article can be published straight away with only minor editorial amendments (no need for further reviewer input).
• Accept with minor revisions – The article needs to be revised slightly in form and/or content according to the reviewers’ recommendations (the original reviewers and/or editor will check the article again before publication).
• Revise and Resubmit – This is an invitation to revise and resubmit the article. Acceptance is conditional on the extent to which the author has addressed the comments of the reviewers, who will carefully review the paper a second time. If reviewers do not feel that their comments have been adequately dealt with, the article will be rejected. If their comments have been adequately addressed, the article will be accepted (in some cases with minor editorial changes).
• Reject – The reviewers do not consider that this article could be revised adequately in order to meet the criteria for publication. The author is not invited to resubmit the paper.

Where there is a significant disagreement between reviewers the Editors can seek the opinion of a third reviewer.

 

Turnaround

It is important that you return your comments to the Editors within a specified four-week period. If there is likely to be a delay, please let us know as soon as possible.

Please type your report in an impersonal style suitable for sending directly to the author. An affirmative and positive approach to feedback will be the most encouraging for the recipient. Your overview and comments should be constructive and not diminish authors, so that we can send them directly to authors. To preserve anonymity, do not sign your name.

It is particularly useful if you provide detailed comments on the parts of the paper that are to be revised, and the nature and extent of such revision. Most papers will require some revisions, in which case they will be returned to you for further consideration before publication. Please note that we only allow authors one opportunity to rewrite the article so would not encourage detailed comments on a second version if you feel it has still not reached the standard for publication. However, minor editorial suggestions may be made at this point if you are recommending publication.

Although we do not expect referees to give detailed corrections relating to grammar, spelling or punctuation, we would ask you please to indicate where these seem noticeably deficient.

Finally, if necessary, please state clearly why you reject a particular paper. While the publisher assumes responsibility, it would also be helpful if you were to indicate any concerns that the material may be plagiarized or an infringement of copyright.