Contribution to Editorial Decisions 

Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the author in improving the quality of 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 editors and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality 

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

Standards of Objectivity 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by a proper citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors' 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. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers.

Review Process 

Every manuscript submitted to re-JIEM (Research Journal of Islamic Education Management) IAIN Madura is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of a "single-blind review". The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendations. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.