The Journal of Creative Writing (JOCW) is a double-blind, peer-reviewed publication. All manuscripts submitted to the JOCW for publication undergo peer review. The peer review process in this publication involves an assessment of the submitted manuscript by two or more individuals possessing comparable expertise to the author. It seeks to assess the academic paper's appropriateness for publishing. The peer-review process is utilized to uphold quality standards and confer credibility to the manuscripts. The evaluation procedure will require around 4 to 12 weeks. The peer review process at JOCW consists of nine steps, detailed as follows.

1. Paper Submission

The corresponding or submitting author presents the manuscript to the journal. This is conducted through an online platform facilitated by the Open Journal System (OJS). To assist writers, JOCW is temporarily accepting paper submissions via email.

2. Evaluation by the Editorial Office

The JOCW editor initially evaluates the submitted paper. The editor assesses its alignment with the journal's aim and breadth. The paper's structure and organization are assessed in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it contains the necessary sections and formatting. Furthermore, an evaluation of the minimum requisite quality of the manuscript for publishing commences at this stage, encompassing an assessment of any significant methodological deficiencies. All submitted papers that advance past this stage will undergo a Turnitin assessment to detect any instances of plagiarism prior to review by evaluators.

3. Evaluation by the Editor

The Editor evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal, ensuring it is adequately original, engaging, and of substantial significance for publishing. Otherwise, the article may be dismissed without further examination.

4. Call for Reviewers

The handling editor extends invitations to persons deemed suitable as reviewers, based on their experience, alignment of research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. The peer-review process at JOCW engages a community of specialists in the specialized domain of Islamic education, as delineated in the focus and scope, ensuring compliance with requirements and facilitating a relatively unbiased evaluation. The journal upholds impartiality through the implementation of a double-blind peer review process. The reviewer is unaware of the author's identity, and conversely, the author is unaware of the reviewer's identity. The manuscript is submitted to reviewers under conditions of anonymity.

5. Reply to Invitations

Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their knowledge, conflicts of interest, and availability. They thereafter determine whether to accept or decline. The editor may request the potential reviewer to recommend an alternate reviewer if they decline the review invitation.

6. Review is Executed

The reviewers dedicate time to peruse the document multiple times. The initial reading serves to establish a preliminary assessment of the work. Should significant issues be identified at this point, the reviewers may be inclined to reject the manuscript without more revisions. Otherwise, they will peruse the document multiple additional times, annotating to construct a comprehensive point-by-point critique. The review is thereafter sent to the journal, accompanied by a recommendation for acceptance, rejection, or a request for correction (often categorized as significant or minor) prior to reevaluation.

7. Journal Assesses the Evaluations

The Editor and handling editor evaluate all submitted reviews prior to reaching a final decision. Should the evaluations significantly diverge between the two reviewers, the handling editor may solicit an additional reviewer to acquire further insight prior to rendering a decision.

The Decision is Conveyed

The editor transmits a decision email to the author, incorporating pertinent reviewer feedback. Reviewer comments are transmitted anonymously to the related author for appropriate actions and responses. At this stage, reviewers will receive an email or letter informing them of the results of their review.

9. Concluding Procedures

Upon acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copy-editing. Should the article be rejected or returned to the author for significant or small revisions, the handling editor will provide constructive feedback from the reviewers to assist the author in enhancing the piece. The author must amend and edit the manuscript according to the reviewers' feedback and directives.

Upon completion of revisions, the author must resubmit the amended manuscript to the editor.

If the manuscript was returned for editing, the reviewers should anticipate receiving the amended version, unless they have declined further involvement. Nevertheless, if only modest modifications were requested, this further review may be conducted by the handling editor.

Acceptance of the amended article is contingent upon the editor's satisfaction. Accepted papers will be published online and will be publicly accessible as downloadable PDF files.