Peer Review Process

Research Journal Al-Qamar follows a structured double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, methodological strength, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript considered for publication. Peer review is an essential part of the journal’s editorial system and helps maintain trust, fairness, transparency, and academic credibility.

In the double-blind review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential as far as possible. Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of authors. This process helps reduce bias and supports fair academic evaluation.

Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in Research Journal Al-Qamar. Reviewers examine the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, argument, methodology, use of sources, citation accuracy, ethical compliance, language, and contribution to knowledge.

Peer review helps the journal to:

Maintain scholarly standards
Ensure originality and research quality
Improve manuscripts through expert feedback
Identify weaknesses in argument, method, or evidence
Strengthen citation and reference accuracy
Detect ethical or academic concerns
Support fair editorial decision-making
Protect the credibility of the published scholarly record

Peer review is advisory in nature. Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the competent editorial authority of the journal.

Initial Editorial Screening Before Review

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it is first examined by the editorial office. This initial screening determines whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements of the journal.

The editorial office may check:

Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
Proper selection of journal section
Completeness of submission files
Presence of title, abstract, keywords, and references
Academic structure and clarity
Language quality
Citation and reference format
Similarity or plagiarism concerns
Ethical declarations, where required
General suitability for peer review

A manuscript may be returned for correction, declined at the initial stage, or forwarded for peer review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

Double-Blind Review Policy

Research Journal Al-Qamar normally follows a double-blind peer review system. This means that author identities and reviewer identities are kept confidential during the review process.

To support double-blind review, authors may be required to remove identifying information from the main manuscript file. This includes:

Author names
Institutional affiliations
Acknowledgements that reveal identity
Self-identifying statements
File properties containing author details
Direct references that unnecessarily reveal authorship

Author details should be provided separately where required by the journal’s online submission system.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of academic expertise, research experience, subject knowledge, publication record, professional integrity, and relevance to the manuscript’s field. The journal attempts to assign manuscripts to reviewers who are qualified to evaluate the specific subject, language, method, and academic discipline involved.

Reviewers may be selected from:

Editorial Board members
Advisory Board members
External subject experts
University teachers and researchers
Scholars with relevant publications
Specialists in Islamic Studies and related disciplines
Experts in Arabic, Urdu, English, law, history, theology, philosophy, social sciences, or other relevant fields

The journal may invite one or more reviewers depending on the nature, length, complexity, and section of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. A conflict of interest may be personal, academic, institutional, financial, professional, ideological, or any other relationship that may affect impartial judgment.

A reviewer should decline the review if:

The reviewer knows the author’s identity and has a conflict
The reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship with the author
The reviewer has recently collaborated with the author
The reviewer has a direct academic dispute with the author
The reviewer has a financial or institutional interest in the decision
The reviewer cannot provide an objective evaluation
The reviewer lacks sufficient expertise in the subject

If a conflict is discovered later, the journal may disregard the review and seek another reviewer.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly, confidentially, professionally, and constructively. Their comments should be evidence-based and written in respectful academic language.

Reviewers should:

Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript
Declare conflict of interest
Evaluate the manuscript objectively
Provide clear and constructive comments
Support criticism with academic reasons
Identify strengths and weaknesses
Suggest improvements where appropriate
Avoid personal, sectarian, hostile, or insulting language
Submit the review within the requested time
Inform the journal if they cannot complete the review
Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, or ethical problems
Avoid using unpublished manuscript content for personal benefit

Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, cite, or use any unpublished material from the manuscript without permission.

Review Criteria

Reviewers may evaluate a manuscript according to the following criteria:

Originality: Does the manuscript offer a new argument, interpretation, evidence, comparison, or scholarly contribution?
Relevance: Does the manuscript fall within the aims and scope of the journal?
Research Problem: Is the research problem clearly defined?
Methodology: Is the method appropriate, clear, and academically sound?
Argument: Is the central argument logical, coherent, and well-supported?
Use of Sources: Does the manuscript use relevant primary and secondary sources?
Analysis: Does the manuscript analyze evidence rather than merely describe or compile material?
Citation Accuracy: Are references, footnotes, quotations, Qur’anic verses, Hadith citations, and legal references accurate?
Structure: Is the manuscript organized clearly and logically?
Language: Is the language academic, respectful, and suitable for publication?
Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript follow publication ethics and research integrity standards?
Contribution to Knowledge: Does the manuscript add value to Islamic Studies or related fields?

Peer Review of Research Papers

Research papers are reviewed for originality, research design, methodology, scholarly contribution, analysis, evidence, and conclusion. Reviewers assess whether the manuscript presents a clear research problem and whether the findings follow logically from the argument.

A research paper should not be only a descriptive essay, sermon, opinion piece, or compilation of quotations. It should demonstrate academic inquiry, critical engagement, and proper use of sources.

Peer Review of Review Essays

Review essays are reviewed for critical depth, analytical strength, balanced judgment, engagement with scholarship, and relevance to wider academic debates. A review essay must go beyond summary and should evaluate the arguments, methodology, contribution, limitations, and significance of the work or debate under discussion.

Review essays may be reviewed editorially, externally, or through both methods depending on the subject, length, and claims made in the submission.

Peer Review of Monographs

Monographs may require a longer and more detailed review process because of their extended length, depth, and scholarly scope. They may be reviewed by more than one expert or may require additional editorial assessment.

Monographs are evaluated for:

Originality
Unity of argument
Academic depth
Methodological clarity
Chapter structure
Source engagement
Citation accuracy
Scholarly value
Coherence and readability
Suitability for publication as a monograph

The journal may require major revisions, restructuring, additional references, formatting changes, or further review before a monograph is accepted.

Reviewer Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no major changes.
Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is suitable but requires small corrections.
Major Revisions Required: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvement.
Resubmission Required: The manuscript needs major restructuring and may need to be reviewed again after resubmission.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to serious academic, methodological, ethical, or originality concerns.

Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully, but they do not automatically determine the final decision. The editor evaluates reviewer comments and makes the final decision according to journal policy.

Minor Revisions

Minor revisions may be requested when the manuscript is academically suitable but needs limited improvement. These revisions may include:

Correction of typographical errors
Minor language improvement
Clarification of a sentence or paragraph
Formatting adjustment
Reference correction
Improvement of abstract or keywords
Minor changes in conclusion
Consistency in transliteration
Correction of small factual details
Minor table or figure adjustment

Authors should complete minor revisions carefully and within the given time.

Major Revisions

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

Major revisions may include:

Rewriting parts of the argument
Strengthening methodology
Expanding the literature review
Adding missing primary or secondary sources
Reorganizing the structure
Clarifying research questions
Improving analysis
Correcting major citation problems
Revising weak conclusions
Addressing ethical or data-related concerns

A manuscript requiring major revision may be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers after resubmission.

Author Response to Reviewers

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

A response to reviewers should normally include:

Reviewer comment
Author response
Explanation of changes made
Page number or section where the change appears
Reason if a suggestion was not accepted
Updated references, where required
Clarification of methodology or argument
Confirmation of corrections made

Authors should respond respectfully and academically, even when they disagree with a reviewer. Disagreement must be supported by clear scholarly reasoning.

Re-Review After Revision

After a revised manuscript is submitted, the editor may evaluate it directly or send it back to reviewers for re-review. Re-review may be required when the original concerns were substantial or when the manuscript has undergone major changes.

The purpose of re-review is to determine whether the author has adequately addressed reviewer and editorial comments.

Possible outcomes after re-review include:

Acceptance
Minor revisions
Further major revisions
Additional review
Rejection

Additional Review

The journal may seek additional review if:

Reviewer reports are conflicting
The manuscript covers a highly specialized subject
Ethical concerns require expert opinion
The editor needs further academic evaluation
The manuscript is a monograph or extended study
A revised manuscript has changed substantially
There is uncertainty about originality, methodology, or source accuracy

Additional review helps the journal make a fair and informed decision.

Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made after considering reviewer reports, editorial evaluation, journal policy, ethical requirements, and academic standards. The editor may agree or disagree with reviewer recommendations where justified.

The final decision may be:

Accepted
Accepted after minor revision
Major revision required
Resubmission invited
Rejected
Withdrawn from consideration due to policy or ethical concerns

The journal may reject a manuscript even after review if it fails to meet academic, ethical, or publication standards.

Confidentiality of Peer Review

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer comments, editorial discussions, or review decisions to unauthorized persons.

Confidentiality applies to:

Manuscript files
Author identity during blind review
Reviewer identity
Reviewer reports
Editorial correspondence
Unpublished data
Research findings
Ethical concerns
Internal editorial discussions
Appeal-related material

Confidentiality supports trust, fairness, and integrity in the peer review process.

Ethical Concerns During Review

If reviewers identify possible ethical concerns, they should inform the editorial office confidentially. Ethical concerns may include:

Plagiarism
Duplicate publication
Fabricated data
False references
Uncited translation
Copyright violation
Authorship concerns
Conflict of interest
Peer-review manipulation
Misuse of AI-generated content
Inaccurate Qur’anic or Hadith citation
Misrepresentation of sources

The journal may investigate such concerns before making a final decision.

Respectful and Academic Review Language

Reviewers must use professional and respectful language. Critical comments are welcome, but they must be expressed academically and supported by evidence.

Reviewers should avoid:

Personal attacks
Insulting language
Sectarian remarks
Disrespectful comments about religious traditions
Emotional criticism
Unsupported rejection statements
Hostile or discriminatory wording
Comments unrelated to the manuscript

The purpose of peer review is to improve scholarship, not to discourage authors unfairly.

Timeliness of Peer Review

The journal aims to complete peer review within a reasonable time. However, review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, subject complexity, manuscript length, quality of submission, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

Delays may occur when:

Suitable reviewers are not immediately available
Reviewers decline invitations
Reviewers need additional time
The manuscript is highly specialized
Additional review is required
Ethical issues require investigation
Authors delay submission of revisions
Monographs or long manuscripts require extended assessment

Authors are encouraged to submit complete, well-structured, and properly referenced manuscripts to reduce unnecessary delay.

Appeals Related to Peer Review

Authors may appeal a peer-review-based decision if they believe there has been a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, conflict of interest, or unfair evaluation. Appeals must be evidence-based and respectfully written.

An appeal should include:

Manuscript title
Submission ID, where available
Author name and affiliation
Original editorial decision
Specific reviewer or editorial points being challenged
Clear academic reasons for appeal
Supporting evidence
Requested action

Appeals do not guarantee acceptance. The journal may uphold the original decision, request additional review, invite revision, or decline the appeal.

Reviewer Misconduct

The journal may take action if reviewer misconduct is identified. Reviewer misconduct may include:

Breach of confidentiality
Undeclared conflict of interest
Use of unpublished manuscript content
Unprofessional or abusive comments
Deliberate delay
Biased review
Personal or sectarian attack
Requesting inappropriate citation
Sharing the manuscript without permission
Misrepresenting expertise

The journal may remove such reviewers from future review assignments.

Special Care in Islamic Studies

Because Research Journal Al-Qamar publishes in Islamic Studies and related fields, reviewers are expected to pay careful attention to the accuracy and sensitivity of religious, historical, legal, and linguistic content.

Reviewers may examine:

Accuracy of Qur’anic references
Accuracy of Hadith citations
Correct use of classical Islamic sources
Proper identification of schools of thought
Accuracy of Arabic, Urdu, and English translations
Appropriate use of religious terminology
Fair representation of scholarly positions
Avoidance of sectarian or inflammatory language
Responsible discussion of legal and theological issues
Respectful academic criticism

The journal encourages critical scholarship, but all criticism must be grounded in evidence and expressed in responsible academic language.

Documentation of Peer Review

The journal maintains records of the peer review process for accountability and continuity. Peer review documentation may include:

Reviewer invitations
Reviewer acceptances or declines
Reviewer reports
Editorial notes
Decision letters
Author revision files
Response to reviewers
Re-review reports
Final editorial decisions
Appeal records, where applicable

These records help the journal respond to queries, appeals, corrections, and ethical concerns.

Final Statement

Research Journal Al-Qamar is committed to a fair, confidential, transparent, and academically rigorous peer review process. Through double-blind review, expert evaluation, ethical oversight, respectful communication, and responsible editorial decision-making, the journal aims to publish research that contributes meaningfully to Islamic Studies, Religious Studies, Humanities, Social Sciences, Arabic, Urdu, and related fields.