REVIEW PROCESS
Diwan: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Arab is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of review integrity and ensuring the quality of the review process. After the editor evaluates your work to determine its appropriateness, it will undergo a minimum double-anonymous peer review process conducted by independent and anonymous experts.
The steps of the review process are as follows:
Step 1: Initial Screening
The initial screening stage measures the manuscript's suitability with the quantitative aspects of the Author Guidelines and Templates. This stage is carried out as a tool by referring to the Rubric for Initial Screening. The manuscript will be immediately rejected at this stage if it does not match the focus and scope of the journal or has a similarity of more than 20% based on the examination results with Turnitin. The manuscript will be returned to the author for revision if it matches the focus and scope and passes the similarity test above, but does not meet the other criteria. The manuscript will proceed to the Internal Review stage if it has met all the requirements in the rubric. The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor carries out Initial Screening with a maximum time of 3 weeks. The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 3 weeks. Revisions that do not meet the criteria will be declined.
Step 2. Internal Review
The internal review stage aims to measure the substance of at least several parts of the manuscript (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion). At this stage, the substance of the parts of the manuscript, as explained in the Author Guidelines, is reviewed and evaluated so that it can be improved before entering the peer review stage. At this stage, peer review can focus more on the quality and depth of the article. The results of the Internal Review, in the form of suggestions and recommendations, are submitted to the author for follow-up and revision. Advisory Editors or Editor-in-Chief carry out an Internal Review with a maximum time of 3 weeks. The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 3 weeks. Revisions that do not meet the expectations of the Internal Reviewer's suggestions and recommendations will be declined.
Step 3. Peer Review
The peer review stage examines the quality of the manuscript's substance, methods, and writing. At this stage, all parts of the manuscript are reviewed and evaluated by experts to maximize its quality as a scientific article that provides theoretical and practical impact and contribution. At this stage, the manuscript will undergo an in-depth evaluation that produces suggestions and recommendations, where the revisions requested of the author can be "Minor" or "Major". Peer Review is carried out by minimum 2 Anonymous Reviewers consisting of internationally qualified professors and doctors, with a maximum time of 6 weeks for the first round review and a maximum of 4 weeks for the second round review (if any). The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 6 weeks for the first round revision and a maximum of 4 weeks for the second round revision (if any). Revisions by the author are stated concretely in the Revision Form. Revisions that do not meet the expectations of the Reviewer's suggestions and recommendations will be declined.
The steps of the review process are as follows:
Step 1: Initial Screening
The initial screening stage measures the manuscript's suitability with the quantitative aspects of the Author Guidelines and Templates. This stage is carried out as a tool by referring to the Rubric for Initial Screening. The manuscript will be immediately rejected at this stage if it does not match the focus and scope of the journal or has a similarity of more than 20% based on the examination results with Turnitin. The manuscript will be returned to the author for revision if it matches the focus and scope and passes the similarity test above, but does not meet the other criteria. The manuscript will proceed to the Internal Review stage if it has met all the requirements in the rubric. The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor carries out Initial Screening with a maximum time of 3 weeks. The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 3 weeks. Revisions that do not meet the criteria will be declined.
Step 2. Internal Review
The internal review stage aims to measure the substance of at least several parts of the manuscript (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion). At this stage, the substance of the parts of the manuscript, as explained in the Author Guidelines, is reviewed and evaluated so that it can be improved before entering the peer review stage. At this stage, peer review can focus more on the quality and depth of the article. The results of the Internal Review, in the form of suggestions and recommendations, are submitted to the author for follow-up and revision. Advisory Editors or Editor-in-Chief carry out an Internal Review with a maximum time of 3 weeks. The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 3 weeks. Revisions that do not meet the expectations of the Internal Reviewer's suggestions and recommendations will be declined.
Step 3. Peer Review
The peer review stage examines the quality of the manuscript's substance, methods, and writing. At this stage, all parts of the manuscript are reviewed and evaluated by experts to maximize its quality as a scientific article that provides theoretical and practical impact and contribution. At this stage, the manuscript will undergo an in-depth evaluation that produces suggestions and recommendations, where the revisions requested of the author can be "Minor" or "Major". Peer Review is carried out by minimum 2 Anonymous Reviewers consisting of internationally qualified professors and doctors, with a maximum time of 6 weeks for the first round review and a maximum of 4 weeks for the second round review (if any). The author's revision at this stage is also given a maximum of 6 weeks for the first round revision and a maximum of 4 weeks for the second round revision (if any). Revisions by the author are stated concretely in the Revision Form. Revisions that do not meet the expectations of the Reviewer's suggestions and recommendations will be declined.
