Review Process

AL-ARKHABIIL: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, and ethical integrity of all published articles. The following describes the complete review workflow:

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening Upon submission through the journal's OJS platform, the manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor within 5–7 working days. This initial screening evaluates: (a) alignment with the journal's aims and scope; (b) adherence to author guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements; (c) English abstract quality and completeness; (d) preliminary assessment of academic merit and originality; and (e) plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent software (maximum similarity threshold: 20%). Manuscripts that do not meet these minimum criteria are returned to the author with specific feedback at the desk rejection stage, without proceeding to external review.

2. Reviewer Assignment Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise in the relevant field of community service research, Islamic education, social empowerment, or related disciplines. Both the author's identity and the reviewer's identity are concealed throughout the review process, ensuring complete double-blind confidentiality. The editorial team takes care to avoid conflicts of interest by excluding reviewers from the same institution as the submitting author.

3. Review Evaluation Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria: (a) originality and significance of the community service program or intervention; (b) clarity and appropriateness of the methodology; (c) soundness of data collection and analysis; (d) quality and relevance of the literature review; (e) clarity of presentation and language quality; and (f) ethical conduct of the community service activity. Reviewers are requested to submit their assessment within 3–4 weeks of assignment.

4. Editorial Decision Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of the following decisions: (a) Accept as submitted; (b) Minor revision required; (c) Major revision required; (d) Reject. In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, a third reviewer may be consulted before a final decision is made. All editorial decisions are communicated to the author with full reviewer comments.

5. Revision and Re-review Authors whose manuscripts require revision are given a specified deadline to submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation or assessed directly by the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the extent of revisions required.

6. Final Acceptance and Production Upon final acceptance, manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout formatting, and DOI assignment via Crossref before publication. Authors are given the opportunity to review page proofs prior to final publication.

The average turnaround time from submission to first editorial decision is approximately 3–4 weeks. The average time from submission to final publication is approximately 8 weeks. The journal maintains an acceptance rate of approximately 30% of all submitted manuscripts.

All aspects of the peer review process are conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.