The Australian Journal of Islamic Studies (AJIS) publishes double-blind peer-reviewed articles and book reviews on scholarly research related to Islam and Muslims. The Editorial Team is committed to ensuring that the peer-review and publication process is thorough, objective, and fair. The journal's publication code of ethics is primarily based on the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE provides standards for ethical behaviour and offers solutions to ethical dilemmas encountered by authors, editors, and reviewers. AJIS’ publication code of ethics is designed to maintain the integrity of the journal and ensures that all published content meets the highest scientific and ethical standards. Authors, the editorial team and reviewers must follow these guidelines. Any ethical concerns or questions related to the journal can be directed to the Editor-in-Chief. This code of ethics applies to all manuscripts submitted to AJIS.

Code of Ethics for Authors

For successful acceptance of an article or book review to AJIS, authors should ensure that their submission meets the following guidelines. Authors should:

1. Uphold accurate authorship, where all contributing authors are listed in the submission process and acknowledged accordingly.
2. Understand that submissions to more than one journal outside of AJIS is not permitted until a decision regarding the submitted manuscript is made by the editorial team.
3. Present their research findings correctly and accurately, with an objective discussion on the significance of their findings.
4. Ensure that their data and methods are clear, concise, and replicable so that other researchers can engage with the data and develop new findings.
5. Disclose any potential instances of conflict of interest during the submission process.
6. Submit manuscripts that are original, in line with AJIS aims and scope, and have not been published elsewhere, including any translated versions of the same submission.
7. Obtain permission to publish any images, tables, quotes, or data from the copyright holder for any content used in the manuscript that has been previously published elsewhere.
8. Let the editorial team know of any errors or inaccuracies found in the submission after publication as soon as possible.
9. Avoid citing AI or AI-assisted technologies in their authorship as they do not meet authorship criteria and cannot be listed as authors in the submission.
10. Declare any use of AI or AI-assisted technologies and tools in their submission, including being transparent about how these tools were used and the AI product details.
11. Understand that authors are completely responsible for the integrity, originality, and validity of the content of their submission to AJIS and must ensure that it complies with AJIS ethical standards and practices.

This list is not exhaustive. All authors should be aware of ethical practices and legal considerations in the academic publishing industry prior to publishing with AJIS. Some examples of ethical misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Breaches in copyright
• Image or data manipulation or fabrication
• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
• Undeclared use of AI or AI-assisted technologies
• Affiliation misrepresentation
• Citation manipulation
• Undisclosed competing interests
• Duplicate submission or publication
• Peer review manipulation
• Unethical research

If you have considered submitting a manuscript to AJIS, go through this checklist:

• I have read the journal’s ethics statement.
• I have read the journal’s Author Guidelines and carefully followed all instructions set by the journal under Submission Checklist.
• I have acknowledged all authors on the paper and in my online submission form.
• I have notified all the co-authors of my intent to submit the manuscript to AJIS.
• I have referenced all material clearly, thoroughly, and according to AJIS referencing guidelines outlined in the Author Guidelines section of the website.
• I have declared relevant competing interests to the AJIS.
• I have obtained written permission to reuse any images, tables, data, figures, or other pre-published material in accordance with copyright law.
• I have only submitted to AJIS, and my manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.

Code of Ethics for the Editorial Team

The Editorial Team will assess the merit of a manuscript promptly upon receipt. An acknowledgment of receipt will be sent to the author(s) once the manuscript has been received. If the manuscript is deemed to be in good order, it will be promptly forwarded to reviewers.

The Editorial Team will provide the author(s) with a comprehensive explanation of the editorial decision, incorporating detailed feedback from the reviewers and offering additional suggestions where necessary.

All manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Team and Consultant Editors are subject to a double-blind review process. To maintain this, these authors are excluded from both the review process and the final decision on their manuscripts. While editors are allowed to submit manuscripts to AJIS, an excessive number of submissions from the journal’s own Editorial Team and Consultant Editors will not be permitted.

When editors from the Editorial Team are presented with a manuscript where their own interests might compromise their ability to make an impartial decision, they will delegate the handling of the manuscript to another editor on the team. This ensures that the manuscript is evaluated objectively, fairly, and professionally, without personal biases.

AJIS prides itself on ensuring ethical practices are strictly adhered to by the Editorial Team. AJIS strongly abides by the following ethical principles:

Prevention
Carefully assessing all submissions for potential ethical breaches throughout the submission process.

Impartiality
To be fair and objective in evaluations.

Transparency
Keeping all authors, reviewers, and editors informed during all stages of the submission process and allowing an appropriate response time.

Reliability
Ensuring that all policies, ethics or otherwise, are followed consistently to maintain the integrity of the journal and ensure best practice by the journal.

Code of Ethics for Reviewers

AJIS uses a double-blind peer-review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The editorial team selects reviewers based on their capacity to conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, ensuring that only the most appropriate and high-quality articles and book reviews are published in AJIS.

Reviewers should refrain from any actions or statements that could reveal their identity to the author(s) of the manuscript they are reviewing or have reviewed. Reviewers must meet minimum standards of expertise in their research field and have a record of published articles in that field. Reviewers who may have conflicts of interest with the manuscript’s subject, are not appointed as reviewers.

Manuscripts submitted to AJIS are first assessed by the Editorial Team to determine if the manuscript holds potential interest for the journal’s readership. Manuscripts that are deemed relevant, properly formatted according to the guidelines, and well-presented are then processed through Turnitin and checked for issues such as plagiarism. If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards during this initial review process, it will be declined. If the manuscript passes this initial evaluation, it is forwarded to two reviewers for a double-blind peer-review.

A thorough review includes the following contributions from the reviewers:

• Evaluate the literature cited, ensuring that it includes a broad and up-to-date range of research on the topic.
• Assess and provide feedback on the key strengths and weaknesses of the research design, including the methodology and theoretical framework.
• Provide precise and constructive feedback on the interpretation of data presented in the research.
• Highlight any indications of substandard data analysis and address any ethical concerns related to the study.
• Offer the author(s) valuable suggestions for enhancing their manuscript.
• Ensure that no information is included that could compromise the double-blind peer-review process.
• Offer clear evidence and reasoning when recommending the acceptability of the manuscript. After providing a detailed evaluation, one of the following recommendations should be made:
  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Return to the author(s) for major modifications. Authors to revise and resubmit for another round of reviews
  • Reject outright due to the manuscript not meeting the requirements of the journal.

Reviewers have the liberty to make the recommendation which they deem appropriate. However, the Editorial Team may need to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. Therefore, the most useful reports from reviewers are the detailed ones as they will enable a well-informed decision to be made.

All reviewers are informed of the journal’s expectations, and the Editorial Team will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of the review.

Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript for its scope, accuracy, quality, relevance, and contribution to the field. If they determine that the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified time, they should notify the Editorial Team and return the manuscript.

The manuscript under review is privileged information and must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not retain or copy it by any means. Neither reviewers nor the Editorial Team should use the data, arguments, or interpretations for personal or professional purposes before the manuscript is published. Such use could create a conflict of interest and is considered unacceptable behaviour.

If reviewers suspect any misconduct, they should confidentially inform the Editorial Team and refrain from discussing their concerns with others.

Reviewers should complete their reviews promptly. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the Editorial Team immediately to discuss whether an extension is possible. The standard time frame for completing a review is six weeks.

Ethics on Post Publication

Amendments

Authors may request amendments for various reasons, which can be classified into four categories: erratum, corrigendum, retraction, or addendum.

1. Erratum: An erratum is a notice of a significant error made by AJIS during the manuscript’s production, which impacts the integrity of the manuscript, the reputation of the author(s), and/or the reputation of AJIS.
2. Corrigendum: A corrigendum is a notice of a significant error made by the author(s) that affects the publication record, the integrity of the manuscript, or the reputation of the author(s) and/or AJIS. All authors are required to sign corrigenda submitted for publication.
3. Retraction: A retraction is a notice of invalid results or misinformation within the manuscript. Authors must sign the retraction, detailing the error and briefly explaining how it affects the conclusions. Retractions are assessed based on whether the main conclusion of the manuscript remains valid or is significantly undermined by new information that the author(s) were unaware of at the time of publication. Readers who wish to raise concerns about a published manuscript that may require retraction, should contact the Editor-in-Chief, who will consult with reviewers. If the reviewers find that the information could challenge the manuscript’s main conclusions, the author will be given a chance to respond. The Editorial Team will then decide the manuscript’s fate accordingly.
4. Addendum: Addendum is the notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to a manuscript, usually in response to a reader’s request for clarification.

Penalties and Sanctions

The Editorial Team has the sole responsibility and authority to determine the proper sanction.

Plagiarism is a serious breach of scientific integrity and a violation of publication ethics, which AJIS does not tolerate. Such misconduct will be addressed promptly and fairly. The primary responsibility for detecting plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to AJIS lies with the Editorial Team, Consultant Editors, and reviewers. Due to the gravity of plagiarism accusations, strict confidentiality must be maintained throughout the process. The accusation, supporting evidence, and outcome should only be disclosed to those directly involved in the review process. Due process and confidentiality are crucial in all cases of alleged plagiarism, falsification, and other unethical conduct. These cases will be managed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Publication Code of Ethics.

If the Editorial Team determines that ethical misconduct has occurred, the manuscript will be rejected. If the manuscript has already been published, it will be promptly retracted. Additionally, the author(s) may be prohibited from submitting to AJIS for a period of one to three years, depending on the severity of the misconduct. AJIS reserves the right to evaluate issues of misconduct such as plagiarism and redundancy on a case-by-case basis.

Consequences

Authors: Any manuscript found to contain plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material is considered unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The editorial team and/or reviewers must report any suspected unethical behavior by the author(s) to the Editor-in-Chief, who will ensure that appropriate action is taken. The following actions may be considered:

1. Notice to the author(s) involved
2. Rejection of the manuscript
3. Retraction of manuscript that has been published with appropriate notice on the website
4. Ban from submitting to AJIS for a period, normally up to three years

Editorial Team: The reputation of AJIS relies significantly on the conduct and fairness of its Editorial Team. Members must consistently demonstrate their commitment to these principles. Any suspected misconduct by a team member should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief. If a member holding an editorial role at AJIS is found guilty of ethical misconduct, they will be dismissed from their position. Additional penalties, such as sanctions, may also be imposed.