Review Guidelines

Kamaya: Jurnal Ilmu Agama is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous, objective, independent, and ethical peer-review process. The journal implements a single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities remain confidential.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least one independent reviewer with relevant academic expertise. Additional reviewers may be appointed when necessary to ensure a comprehensive and balanced scholarly assessment.

The review process evaluates the originality, methodological rigor, academic relevance, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts within the journal's focus on Religious and Cultural Studies.

1. Initial Manuscript Review

Reviewers should examine the manuscript's title, abstract, and overall content to determine its relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

Kamaya: Jurnal Ilmu Agama covers scholarly research in Religious and Cultural Studies, including religious education, religious texts and literature, theology, religious philosophy, yoga, religious law, religious communication, religious culture, religious moderation, cultural studies, regional languages, regional literature, the academic study of religion, and local wisdom.

The initial assessment should consider the manuscript's originality, academic significance, research objectives, methodological appropriateness, and potential contribution to religious and cultural scholarship.

Reviewers should also ensure that the manuscript is consistent with the journal's Author Guidelines, Manuscript Type requirements, and publication ethics standards.

Reviewers who lack sufficient expertise, identify potential conflicts of interest, or cannot complete the evaluation within the specified timeframe should promptly inform the editorial team.

2. Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers should conduct a thorough, objective, and constructive evaluation based on the following criteria:

a. Originality and Scholarly Contribution

The manuscript presents original research findings, theoretical arguments, critical interpretations, or scholarly insights that contribute meaningfully to Religious and Cultural Studies. The study should demonstrate academic significance and a clear contribution to existing knowledge.

b. Title, Abstract, and Keywords

The title accurately represents the manuscript's content and does not exceed 20 words. The abstract clearly summarizes the research background, objectives, methodology or analytical approach, principal findings, and conclusions within a maximum of 250 words. Keywords consist of three to five relevant terms.

c. Introduction

The introduction establishes the research background, identifies the research problem or scholarly gap, explains the significance of the study, and presents clear research objectives supported by relevant academic literature.

d. Research Methodology

The methodology is appropriate to the research objectives and clearly explains the research design, data sources or research materials, procedures for data collection or source selection, and analytical techniques.

Depending on the nature of the study, appropriate approaches may include qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, historical, philosophical, phenomenological, ethnographic, hermeneutic, textual, or literary analysis.

For theoretical, philosophical, and literary studies, reviewers should assess the clarity of conceptual frameworks, selection of primary and secondary sources, consistency of interpretation, and rigor of scholarly argumentation.

For Review Articles, reviewers should evaluate the transparency of literature selection, appropriateness of the review methodology, quality of critical synthesis, and identification of relevant research gaps.

All methodologies must demonstrate academic rigor, transparency, and compliance with applicable research ethics.

e. Results and Discussion

Research findings or analytical arguments are presented systematically and supported by sufficient empirical evidence, relevant literature, textual sources, or theoretical reasoning.

The discussion demonstrates critical interpretation, relates findings to previous scholarship, and explains their theoretical, conceptual, or practical implications for Religious and Cultural Studies.

For studies involving religious texts, traditions, beliefs, rituals, or cultural practices, interpretations should be academically grounded, contextually appropriate, and supported by credible sources.

f. Conclusions

The conclusions directly address the research objectives, accurately reflect the principal findings or scholarly arguments, and highlight the study's contribution without introducing unsupported claims or new evidence.

g. References

References are relevant, credible, accurate, and consistent with APA Sixth Edition style.

The journal requires that at least 80% of all references consist of scholarly journal articles published within the preceding five years. Books may be cited as supplementary references but shall not be counted toward the minimum 80% requirement for scholarly journal articles.

Philological research and manuscript studies may utilize primary sources that have not been published in book form, provided that the authenticity and provenance of the sources, research ethics, copyright, and applicable access and permission requirements are duly observed. Authors must clearly identify and cite their sources and employ research methods that meet established standards of academic rigor and accountability.

Relevant foundational works, classical religious texts, historical sources, and authoritative scholarly publications may also be used when necessary to support the research objectives and disciplinary context.

All references listed must be appropriately cited in the manuscript, and all in-text citations must correspond to entries in the reference list.

h. Academic Writing and Manuscript Organization

The manuscript demonstrates clarity, coherence, logical organization, appropriate academic language, and consistent scholarly terminology.

Reviewers should also assess compliance with the journal's manuscript formatting requirements and maximum manuscript length of 8,000 words, as specified in the Manuscript Type policy.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Publication Ethics

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, independence, fairness, and objectivity throughout the evaluation process. Submitted manuscripts must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal, professional, or academic advantage without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and decline assignments that may compromise their independence or impartiality.

Evaluations must be based exclusively on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance, and academic contribution, without discrimination based on authors' religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds, institutional affiliations, or personal characteristics.

Reviewers should respect diversity in religious traditions, philosophical perspectives, cultural practices, and scholarly interpretations while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, unethical research practices, or other potential research misconduct must be reported confidentially to the editorial team.

Reviewer comments should be constructive, respectful, specific, and supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and recommendations that serve individual interests rather than improve the manuscript's academic quality.

4. Review Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Following the evaluation, reviewers should provide clear comments and recommend one of the following outcomes:

a. Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's academic standards and requires no substantive revisions.

b. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements without substantial changes to its scholarly content.

c. Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant improvements in its theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, interpretation, discussion, or overall academic presentation.

d. Decline Submission: The manuscript contains substantial academic, methodological, ethical, or substantive deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

The final editorial decision rests exclusively with the designated editors of Kamaya: Jurnal Ilmu Agama, based on scholarly merit, independent peer-review assessments, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, and compliance with established editorial and publication ethics policies.

5. Review Timeline and Final Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within two weeks of accepting the review assignment. Reviewers who anticipate delays must promptly notify the editorial team.

Authors are required to address reviewers' comments and submit revised manuscripts within the deadline established by the editor. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional evaluation when necessary.

Final acceptance is determined by the editorial team based on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and satisfactory completion of the review and revision processes.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, and publication in accordance with the journal's established editorial and publishing policies.

Through these guidelines, Kamaya: Jurnal Ilmu Agama seeks to maintain a credible, consistent, ethical, and transparent peer-review process that supports the advancement of scholarly knowledge, interdisciplinary dialogue, and academic publication in Religious and Cultural Studies.