Focus and Scope

TAFASIR: Journal of Quranic Studies aims to encourage and promote the study of the Qur’an and suggest the following broad areas of research:

1. Ulum al-Quran

2. Tafseer

3. Living Quran

4. Tafseer Mawdhu'i (Thematic)

5. Tafseer Maqashidi

6. Biographical research of mufassir

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to TAFASIR: Journal of Quranic Studies is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of "double-blind review". Editors will email selected Reviewers the title and abstract of the submission, as well as an invitation to log into the journal web site to complete the review. Reviewers enter the journal web site to agree to do the review, to download submissions, submit their comments, and select a recommendation. Decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendation. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.

The reviewer will review the material according to the standard components of the article. If the content of the article deviates significantly, the reviewer will comment on it. Here is some review points:

1. Title: The title must describe the subject of the manuscript adequately, clearly, precisely and without multiple interpretations. Please suggest a title if needed.
2. Abstract: The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the study, the methods used, the results, and the core conclusions.
3. Reference Review: Authors must give credit to the contributions of others relevant to the article through citations. The citation in the introduction must be able to show the innovation and/or novelty made by the author through gap analysis. Quotations / citations should not be excessive.
4. Purpose: The purpose of the article review should be well explained and will be able to answer the hypothesis.
5. Methods: The methods used to achieve the objectives should be described in a precise and sufficiently detailed manner so as to allow a competent reader to repeat the work done by the author. The tools, materials, hardware/software platforms and frameworks used in the research also need to be described.
6. Clarity: The author must write information on the methods and research results in the article in a simple, concise and effective manner so that it is easily understood by the reader.
7. Delivery organization: Manuscripts must develop/explain the research subject in a logical and effective manner.
8. Duplication: Manuscripts do not repeat the description of the work that has been published by the author or other people. Check if the manuscript can be shortened without losing content by concatenating two or more tables and figures. Reviewers can provide some comments if there is duplication in the text.
9. Calculations: In quantitative research, the Reviewer checks the accuracy of the calculations made by the authors.
10. Tarjamatu ruwat (biography of Hadith's narrators): Reviewers also check the accuracy of names and biographies of The narrators randomly (if it is not possible to check one by one).
11. Relation of Text to Tables and Figures: All tables and figures must be referred to in the text/paragraph. Statements in the text must match the contents of the table and figures.
12. Table and Figure Titles: The title should state the content. If necessary, the reviewer will provide suggestions to improve the quality of table/figure titles.
13. Graphics: Data for presenting graphs/images must be accurate.
14. Conclusion: Conclusions to answer the hypothesis must be stated adequately and clearly and must be supported by data and testing.
15. Allegation: The author must clearly distinguish between conjecture and fact.
16. References: All references in the manuscript must be in the Bibliography. There are at least 10 references, 60% of which are primary references (scientific journals, proceeding articles, reference books, thesis/thesis/dissertation) and published in the last 5 (five) years (except turath books).

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Plagiarism Screening

Before the review, a submitted article has to pass screening plagiarism. The editor section will use Plagiarism Checker X and google. It must have less than 25% similarity result and has not duplicated another research in the same manner. Plagiarism can take diverse forms. It can be copying another article word by word and paraphrasing without mentioning the source. Nabawi: Journal of Hadith Studies will warn the Author and reject it.

Fee And Charges

No fee and charge are required for submitting or publishing an article in Nabawi: Journal of Hadith Studies.

Journal Archiving

If the web server is down or journal's data is loss, our articles still can be found at Internet Archive Scholar and Garuda.

Publication Ethics

Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama dan Sosial Budaya (ISSN 2527-3213 E-ISSN 2502-3489) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Faculty of Ushuluddin, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewers and the publisher. This statement based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama dan Sosial Budaya is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the society. 

The Faculty of Ushuluddin, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung as publisher of Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama dan Sosial Budaya takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, the Faculty of Ushuluddin, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of the Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama dan Sosial Budaya is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Peer-Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer-reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be considered as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Peer-review process should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Peer-reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer-review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Peer-reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Research Involving Human Subjects
Authors must state that investigations involving human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data were conducted in accordance with the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), which was amended in 2013. Before conducting the research, a clearance from the local institutional review board (IRB) or other suitable ethics committee must be acquired, according to point 23 of this statement, to ensure that the study complies with national and international criteria. The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must all be provided in the article's Section 'Institutional Review Board Statement.'

An ethical statement can look like this: "Before taking part in the study, all subjects expressed their informed agreement to be included. The research was carried out in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the XXX (Project identification code) Ethics Committee."

All participants in non-interventional studies (such as surveys, questionnaires, and social media research) must be thoroughly informed about whether anonymity is guaranteed, why the research is being undertaken, how their data will be used, and whether there are any risks involved. Prior to conducting the study, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics commission must be acquired, as with all human research. If ethical approval is not necessary, authors must either obtain an exemption from the ethics committee or cite local or national legislation stating that this type of study does not require ethical approval. If an exemption has been obtained for a study, the name of the ethics committee that approved it should be listed in Section 'Institutional Review Board Statement,' along with a detailed explanation of why ethical approval was not necessary.

Peer-Reviewers

Peer-Reviewers