Editorial Process

Research Journal Al-Qamar follows a structured, transparent, and academically responsible editorial process to ensure the quality, originality, ethical integrity, and scholarly value of every manuscript submitted to the journal. The editorial process begins with online submission and continues through initial screening, plagiarism checking, peer review, revision, final decision, copyediting, production, proofreading, publication, and archiving.

The purpose of the editorial process is to ensure that every published article meets the journal’s standards of academic excellence, research ethics, citation accuracy, methodological clarity, respectful language, and contribution to Islamic Studies and related disciplines.

General Principles

The editorial process of Research Journal Al-Qamar is based on the following principles:

  1. Academic quality
  2. Editorial independence
  3. Fair and unbiased evaluation
  4. Double-blind peer review
  5. Confidentiality
  6. Ethical publication practice
  7. Proper documentation
  8. Timely communication
  9. Transparent decision-making
  10. Protection of the scholarly record

All manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of originality, relevance, research quality, methodology, clarity of argument, ethical compliance, accuracy of references, and contribution to knowledge.

Submission Through Online Journal System

Authors are required to submit manuscripts through the journal’s official Online Journal System (OJS). The OJS platform helps maintain a proper record of submissions, editorial communication, review reports, revisions, decisions, and publication files.

During submission, authors must provide complete and accurate information, including:

  1. Manuscript title
  2. Abstract
  3. Keywords
  4. Author names and affiliations
  5. Corresponding author details
  6. Manuscript file
  7. References
  8. Author declarations
  9. Conflict of interest statement
  10. Funding statement, where applicable
  11. Author contribution statement, where applicable
  12. Ethical approval or permissions, where required

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the author before editorial processing.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office for basic suitability. This stage does not mean acceptance for peer review. It is an initial check to determine whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements of the journal.

The initial screening may examine:

  1. Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
  2. Selection of the correct journal section
  3. Completeness of manuscript files
  4. Presence of abstract and keywords
  5. Formatting and structure
  6. Language quality
  7. Citation and reference style
  8. Author details and declarations
  9. Ethical approval, where required
  10. General academic quality

A manuscript may be returned for correction, declined at this stage, or moved forward for further editorial evaluation.

Scope and Section Check

The editorial team checks whether the manuscript falls within the scope of Research Journal Al-Qamar. The journal publishes scholarly work in Islamic Studies, Religious Studies, Humanities, Social Sciences, Arabic, Urdu, and related fields.

The manuscript is also checked for proper section classification. The journal publishes scholarly work in three main sections:

  1. Research Papers
  2. Review Essays
  3. Monographs

If the author has submitted the manuscript under an incorrect section, the Editorial Board may transfer it to the section that best reflects its academic form and purpose.

Preliminary Quality Assessment

Before sending a manuscript for peer review, the editorial team may assess whether the submission has sufficient academic quality. This assessment may include the clarity of research problem, originality of argument, structure of discussion, use of sources, and relevance to current scholarship.

A manuscript may be declined before peer review if it is:

  1. Outside the journal’s scope
  2. Purely descriptive without research contribution
  3. A general essay or sermon rather than a scholarly article
  4. Poorly structured
  5. Linguistically unsuitable for review
  6. Lacking proper references
  7. Based on unsupported claims
  8. Ethically problematic
  9. Already published elsewhere
  10. Not suitable for academic publication

Editorial rejection at this stage helps save time for authors, reviewers, and the journal.

Similarity and Plagiarism Check

All submitted manuscripts may be checked for similarity and plagiarism before or during the editorial process. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted work is original, unpublished, properly cited, and free from academic misconduct.

The journal may examine the manuscript for:

  1. Direct plagiarism
  2. Improper paraphrasing
  3. Self-plagiarism
  4. Duplicate publication
  5. Uncited translations
  6. Excessive similarity
  7. Fabricated references
  8. AI-generated unverifiable material
  9. Unacknowledged use of another author’s ideas
  10. Misuse of copyrighted content

If similarity concerns are minor, authors may be asked to revise the manuscript. If serious plagiarism or misconduct is found, the manuscript may be rejected.

Assignment to Editor or Section Editor

If the manuscript passes the initial checks, it may be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Associate Editor, or relevant Section Editor. The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s academic suitability and decides whether it should proceed to peer review.

The assigned editor may consider:

  1. Subject relevance
  2. Originality
  3. Methodology
  4. Academic contribution
  5. Language and presentation
  6. Ethical requirements
  7. Reviewer suitability
  8. Need for revision before review

The editor may recommend sending the manuscript for review, returning it for preliminary revision, or declining it if it does not meet the journal’s standards.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Research Journal Al-Qamar follows a double-blind peer review process. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential as far as possible. The purpose is to promote fair, objective, and unbiased academic evaluation.

The journal may send the manuscript to one or more qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected on the basis of academic qualification, subject expertise, research experience, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest.

Reviewers may evaluate the manuscript on the basis of:

  1. Originality of research
  2. Relevance to the journal’s scope
  3. Clarity of research problem
  4. Strength of methodology
  5. Quality of analysis
  6. Use of primary and secondary sources
  7. Accuracy of citations and references
  8. Engagement with existing scholarship
  9. Contribution to knowledge
  10. Ethical compliance
  11. Language and organization
  12. Suitability for publication

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based comments. They should evaluate the manuscript professionally and avoid personal, hostile, sectarian, or disrespectful language.

Reviewers should:

  1. Maintain confidentiality
  2. Declare conflict of interest
  3. Provide objective comments
  4. Support criticism with academic reasons
  5. Suggest improvements where possible
  6. Respect the author’s intellectual effort
  7. Avoid using unpublished material for personal benefit
  8. Submit reports within the requested time
  9. Inform the journal if they are unable to review
  10. Identify ethical concerns where necessary

Reviewer comments help the editors make informed decisions, but the final decision rests with the editorial authority of the journal.

Editorial Decision After Review

After receiving reviewer reports, the editor evaluates the comments and makes or recommends an editorial decision. The decision is based on reviewer recommendations, editorial judgment, journal policy, academic quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  1. Accepted
  2. Accepted with minor revisions
  3. Major revisions required
  4. Resubmission required
  5. Sent for additional review
  6. Rejected

The journal may also decline a manuscript if reviewer reports identify serious academic weaknesses, ethical concerns, plagiarism, lack of originality, poor methodology, or insufficient contribution.

Minor Revisions

A manuscript may be accepted with minor revisions when the research is generally suitable for publication but requires limited changes. Minor revisions may involve:

  1. Language correction
  2. Formatting adjustment
  3. Clarification of a point
  4. Improvement of references
  5. Correction of typographical mistakes
  6. Minor additions to literature review
  7. Small changes in abstract or conclusion
  8. Consistency in transliteration
  9. Minor correction of tables or figures
  10. Improved citation details

Authors must respond carefully and submit the revised manuscript within the given time.

Major Revisions

Major revisions are requested when the manuscript has academic potential but requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication.

Major revisions may involve:

  1. Reworking the argument
  2. Strengthening methodology
  3. Expanding literature review
  4. Improving analysis
  5. Adding missing sources
  6. Revising structure
  7. Clarifying research questions
  8. Correcting major reference problems
  9. Addressing reviewer concerns in detail
  10. Improving language and academic presentation

A manuscript requiring major revision may be sent back to reviewers or evaluated again by the editor after resubmission.

Author Response to Reviewers

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript along with a clear response to reviewer comments. The response should explain how each comment has been addressed.

The response file may include:

  1. Reviewer comment
  2. Author response
  3. Changes made in the manuscript
  4. Page number or section where change was made
  5. Explanation if a suggestion was not followed
  6. Updated references, where required
  7. Clarification of methodology or argument
  8. Confirmation of ethical corrections, where needed

Authors should respond respectfully even where they disagree with a reviewer. Disagreement should be supported by academic reasons.

Resubmission and Re-Evaluation

After revision, the manuscript may be re-evaluated by the editor or sent again to the original reviewers or new reviewers. The purpose of re-evaluation is to determine whether the author has adequately addressed the concerns raised during review.

The manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, sent for additional review, or rejected after re-evaluation.

Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only when the editorial authority is satisfied that it meets the journal’s academic, ethical, structural, and publication standards. Acceptance normally depends on successful completion of peer review, satisfactory revision, proper referencing, ethical compliance, and final editorial approval.

Acceptance does not remove the author’s responsibility for the accuracy of the content, references, quotations, translations, Qur’anic verses, Hadith citations, legal references, tables, figures, and all other scholarly material.

Copyediting

After acceptance, the manuscript may enter the copyediting stage. Copyediting improves clarity, consistency, formatting, grammar, punctuation, citation style, transliteration, and overall presentation.

Copyediting may include:

  1. Typographical correction
  2. Language refinement
  3. Formatting of headings
  4. Footnote and bibliography checking
  5. Citation style consistency
  6. Transliteration correction
  7. Arabic, Urdu, and English text formatting
  8. Table and figure formatting
  9. Correction of minor inconsistencies
  10. Preparation for production

Copyediting does not change the author’s main argument or research findings without editorial approval.

Production and Typesetting

After copyediting, the manuscript moves to production. At this stage, the article is prepared for publication according to the journal’s style and layout.

Production may include:

  1. Typesetting
  2. Page layout
  3. PDF preparation
  4. Pagination
  5. Article metadata preparation
  6. Volume and issue assignment
  7. DOI or article link preparation, where applicable
  8. Table of contents preparation
  9. Online article page creation
  10. Final issue arrangement

The production process ensures that the article is presented professionally and consistently.

Proofreading

Before final publication, the proof may be sent to the corresponding author for checking. Authors must review the proof carefully and respond within the given deadline.

At the proof stage, only minor corrections are normally allowed, such as:

  1. Typographical mistakes
  2. Spelling errors
  3. Minor formatting problems
  4. Incorrect author details
  5. Minor reference corrections
  6. Minor punctuation issues
  7. Small layout corrections

Major changes in title, authorship, structure, argument, methodology, findings, or references are not normally permitted after acceptance unless approved by the editorial office.

Online Publication

After final approval, the article is published online through the journal’s official platform. The online article page may include:

  1. Article title
  2. Author name and affiliation
  3. Abstract
  4. Keywords
  5. Full-text PDF
  6. Citation details
  7. Volume and issue information
  8. Page numbers
  9. DOI or permanent link, where applicable
  10. Publication date
  11. Article metadata

Online publication supports wider visibility, accessibility, citation, and academic dissemination of the article.

Print Publication

Where applicable, accepted articles may also be included in the print version of Research Journal Al-Qamar. The print publication process may include issue arrangement, final pagination, cover preparation, table of contents, editorial pages, and printing.

The journal aims to maintain consistency between online and print publication records.

Editorial Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript details to unauthorized persons.

Confidentiality applies to:

  1. Manuscript content
  2. Author identity during blind review
  3. Reviewer identity
  4. Reviewer comments
  5. Editorial discussions
  6. Ethical investigations
  7. Unpublished data or arguments
  8. Internal decisions
  9. Appeal records
  10. Communication related to the manuscript

Confidentiality supports fairness, trust, and integrity in the editorial process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to evaluate a manuscript fairly. A conflict of interest may be personal, academic, institutional, financial, professional, or ideological.

If a conflict exists, the manuscript may be assigned to another editor or reviewer.

Authors must also disclose any conflict of interest at the time of submission.

Editorial Independence and Fairness

The editorial process is conducted independently. Manuscripts are evaluated on academic merit, not on the author’s status, affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, personal relationship, religious identity, political position, or financial capacity.

The journal does not accept pressure from authors, institutions, sponsors, or external parties to influence editorial decisions.

Communication With Authors

Official communication regarding manuscripts should normally take place through the OJS platform or authorized editorial email. Authors should regularly check their registered email and OJS dashboard.

Editorial communication may include:

  1. Submission confirmation
  2. Initial screening queries
  3. Requests for missing documents
  4. Review decisions
  5. Reviewer comments
  6. Revision instructions
  7. Copyediting queries
  8. Proofreading requests
  9. Acceptance or rejection notices
  10. Publication updates

Authors should respond professionally and within the required time.

Documentation and Editorial Record

The journal maintains editorial records for accountability, transparency, and continuity. Editorial documentation may include:

  1. Submission files
  2. Author declarations
  3. Similarity reports, where used
  4. Reviewer invitations
  5. Reviewer reports
  6. Editorial notes
  7. Decision letters
  8. Revised manuscripts
  9. Author responses
  10. Copyedited files
  11. Proof corrections
  12. Production files
  13. Metadata records
  14. Publication notices
  15. Correction or retraction records, where applicable

These records help the journal respond to queries, appeals, ethical concerns, and post-publication matters.

Timeliness of Editorial Process

The journal aims to process manuscripts as efficiently as possible. However, editorial timelines may vary depending on manuscript quality, completeness of submission, availability of reviewers, revision requirements, ethical checks, and production workload.

Delays may occur when:

  1. The manuscript is incomplete
  2. References are inaccurate
  3. Similarity concerns require review
  4. Suitable reviewers are not immediately available
  5. Reviewers require additional time
  6. Authors delay revisions
  7. Major language editing is needed
  8. Ethical clarification is required
  9. Production corrections are extensive
  10. Metadata or file issues need resolution

The journal encourages authors to submit complete, well-prepared manuscripts to avoid unnecessary delays.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe there has been a procedural error, misunderstanding, factual mistake, conflict of interest, or unfair evaluation. Appeals must be written respectfully and supported by clear academic reasons.

An appeal should include:

  1. Manuscript title
  2. Submission ID, where available
  3. Author name
  4. Original decision
  5. Reason for appeal
  6. Specific points being challenged
  7. Supporting evidence
  8. Requested action

Appeals do not guarantee acceptance or reversal of decision. The final decision after appeal rests with the competent editorial authority.

Corrections, Withdrawals, and Retractions

The editorial process also includes post-submission and post-publication responsibilities. If errors or ethical concerns arise, the journal may consider correction, withdrawal, expression of concern, or retraction according to the seriousness of the case.

Such matters may involve:

  1. Author name correction
  2. Affiliation correction
  3. Reference correction
  4. Data or quotation correction
  5. Plagiarism concern
  6. Duplicate publication
  7. Authorship dispute
  8. Ethical approval issue
  9. Serious factual error
  10. Misrepresentation of sources

The journal aims to protect the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record.

Special Care in Islamic Studies

Because the journal publishes in Islamic Studies and related fields, the editorial process pays special attention to the accuracy of religious texts, terminology, translations, legal claims, historical references, and sectarian classifications.

Authors must ensure accuracy in:

  1. Qur’anic verses
  2. Hadith texts
  3. Classical Arabic references
  4. Names of scholars
  5. Legal schools and theological positions
  6. Translations and transliterations
  7. Historical claims
  8. Religious terminology
  9. Sensitive contemporary issues
  10. Comparative religious statements

The journal encourages critical scholarship, but criticism must remain evidence-based, respectful, and academically responsible.

Final Editorial Responsibility

The final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the journal’s competent editorial authority. The Editorial Board may accept, reject, request revision, withdraw, correct, or retract manuscripts according to journal policy and publication ethics.

Authors remain responsible for the originality, accuracy, ethical compliance, and scholarly integrity of their work.

Final Statement

Research Journal Al-Qamar follows a careful editorial process to ensure that every published manuscript reflects academic quality, ethical responsibility, originality, methodological clarity, accurate referencing, and professional presentation. Through structured editorial screening, double-blind peer review, responsible revision, copyediting, production, and archiving, the journal aims to protect the integrity of scholarly publishing and promote serious academic contribution in Islamic Studies and related disciplines.