Tarlim Jurnal Pendidikan Agama Islam relies on expert peer reviewers to safeguard the quality, rigor, and integrity of published scholarly research in Islamic Religious Education. Peer reviewers play a fundamental role in evaluating academic manuscripts and assisting the editorial team in making informed decisions. To ensure a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review process, the journal requires all reviewers to conduct their evaluations in strict compliance with the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, specifically adhering to the principles outlined in COPE's guidance on peer review models and ethical reviewer conduct.

1. Expertise and Acceptance of Assignments
Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts for which they possess the necessary subject matter expertise to provide a thorough and critical evaluation. If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate the research methods, theoretical frameworks, or pedagogical data presented, or if they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, they must notify the editorial office promptly and decline the invitation. Participating in peer review responsibly ensures that the journal maintains its adherence to global core practices of scholarly publishing.

2. Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Protections
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not show, discuss, or share any part of an unpublished manuscript with third parties without prior written authorization from the Editor-in-Chief. Furthermore, reviewers are strictly prohibited from using unpublished data, theoretical insights, or research findings disclosed in a manuscript for their own personal research or academic gain. In light of technological developments, reviewers must also refrain from uploading submitted manuscripts into public generative artificial intelligence tools, as doing so violates the fundamental principle to protect authors' intellectual property and manuscript confidentiality.

3. Objectivity, Constructive Feedback, and Timeliness
Reviews must be conducted objectively, impartially, and constructively. Reviewers should express their academic views clearly, supporting their evaluations with substantial arguments, relevant references, and verifiable reasoning, while avoiding personal, hostile, or ad hominem remarks. Additionally, reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed deadline; if unforeseen circumstances cause a delay, the reviewer must contact the editor immediately to preserve the journal's commitment to efficient journal management and transparent workflows.

4. Declaring Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must remain vigilant regarding potential competing interests that could bias their evaluation. If a reviewer realizes they have a financial, personal, institutional, or collaborative relationship with any of the authors or associated institutions, they must decline the review request immediately. Should an undisclosed conflict of interest arise or be identified after accepting an assignment, the reviewer must notify the editor so the journal can follow standard COPE procedures to handle an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript.

5. Identification of Ethical Violations and Misconduct
Reviewers serve as a critical defense line in identifying potential ethical breaches in submitted work. If a reviewer suspects instances of plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, improper citation manipulation, or unacknowledged AI generation, they are obligated to inform the Editor-in-Chief confidentially with specific details. The editorial team will then investigate the concern using COPE's dedicated frameworks designed to address allegations of research misconduct before taking appropriate editorial action.