Duties of Reviewers

Purpose and Scope

Research Journal Al-Qamar (ISSN Print 2664-438X, Online 2664-4398) is a double-blind peer-reviewed, open access academic journal published by Al-Qamar Islamic Research Institute, Lahore, Pakistan. The journal is recognized by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan in Y Category and publishes scholarship in Islamic Studies and related disciplines in Urdu, English, and Arabic. This page defines reviewer responsibilities. Peer reviewers support scholarly quality by providing expert, confidential, and constructive evaluation.

This page covers: Expertise, confidentiality, objectivity, timeliness, constructive review, and conflicts. It applies to all relevant submissions, published material, editorial communications, reviewer reports, production records, metadata, and post-publication concerns handled by the journal.

International Publishing Standard

The policy is written in harmony with widely accepted international publishing expectations, including editorial independence, transparent journal governance, confidentiality in peer review, disclosure of competing interests, correction of the scholarly record, accurate metadata, responsible authorship, ethical research practice, and long-term preservation of published content. The journal also gives particular attention to the needs of Islamic Studies, where classical texts, religious terminology, legal interpretation, historical sources, translations, and contemporary social claims require careful handling.

The journal seeks to maintain standards comparable to professional academic publishers: clear policies, documented decisions, trained editorial handling, fair peer review, accurate article records, transparent corrections, and separation between editorial judgment and non-editorial influence. These standards are applied in a way that respects the journal discipline, languages, resources, and institutional context.

Core Requirements

• Accept review only when they have relevant expertise and time.
• Treat manuscripts and supplementary materials as confidential.
• Evaluate arguments, evidence, method, references, originality, and contribution objectively.
• Avoid personal remarks and unsupported criticism.
• Declare conflicts and suspected ethical concerns.

Operational Procedure

The editorial office applies this page through the OJS workflow, editorial screening, reviewer selection, author communication, revision requests, metadata checks, proof review, and post-publication monitoring. Relevant information is recorded in journal systems so that decisions can be reviewed by responsible editors when needed.

When the policy requires a declaration, document, clarification, revision, or correction, authors should respond through official journal channels and within the requested time. Reviewers and editors should declare conflicts, preserve confidentiality, and report concerns in a professional manner.

Specific Application

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace editorial judgment. Reviewers should not contact authors directly or use unpublished material.

Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for the integrity, originality, accuracy, and ethical compliance of their submissions. Reviewers are responsible for confidential, expert, objective, and constructive evaluation. Editors are responsible for fair handling, editorial independence, confidentiality, reviewer selection, and protection of the scholarly record. The publisher supports the journal infrastructure while respecting editorial decision-making.

Records, Enforcement, and Review

The journal may retain submission files, metadata, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, correspondence, proofs, correction notices, and publication records as part of normal journal administration. Where a breach is suspected, the editorial board may request evidence, seek additional review, contact authors, consult editorial board members, or take corrective action. Responses should be proportionate, documented, and consistent with the seriousness of the matter.

This page may be reviewed periodically to remain aligned with HEC expectations, indexing requirements, OJS practice, publication ethics guidance, and the needs of scholars in Islamic Studies and related disciplines.

Editorial Documentation and Evidence

For this page, the journal treats documentation as an essential part of quality assurance. Relevant records may include submission files, author declarations, reviewer reports, editorial notes, revised manuscripts, proof corrections, metadata changes, correspondence, permissions, similarity reports where used, production files, DOI information where applicable, and post-publication notices. Documentation helps the editorial board explain decisions, respond to queries, maintain continuity when editors change, and protect the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Authors should therefore provide clear and complete information at the time of submission. Where a manuscript involves translations, archival material, fieldwork, interviews, human participants, institutional data, religious citations, legal claims, or sensitive contemporary issues, the journal may request additional evidence. Such requests are not intended to burden authors unnecessarily; they are part of responsible scholarly verification and are consistent with international publication practice.

Communication and Transparency

Official communication should normally take place through the journal submission system or through authorized editorial email. Authors should not rely on informal messages, third-party promises, or personal contacts as substitutes for the editorial record. Editors should communicate decisions clearly, identify required revisions, and distinguish between mandatory changes and recommendations where possible. Reviewers should write comments in a professional tone and should support criticism with academic reasons.

Transparency does not mean that every confidential editorial detail can be disclosed. Reviewer identities, internal deliberations, and confidential allegations may need protection. However, the journal should be able to explain the procedural basis of decisions and should provide authors with appropriate information about revision requirements, rejection reasons, correction procedures, and appeal routes.

Application to Islamic Studies

Because the journal works in Islamic Studies and related fields, the application of this page requires special care in the use of primary texts, religious terminology, sectarian or legal classifications, historical claims, and translations. Authors should avoid presenting contested interpretations as undisputed fact unless the evidence supports that claim. They should identify schools of thought, historical periods, editions, narrations, and scholarly positions accurately and respectfully.

The journal encourages critical scholarship, but criticism should be grounded in evidence and expressed in academic language. Articles may disagree with earlier scholars, modern writers, institutions, public policies, or intellectual trends, but they should not rely on insult, exaggeration, selective quotation, or inflammatory language. This standard protects academic seriousness and supports responsible debate among scholars from different traditions and regions.

Quality Control and Periodic Review

The editorial board may review the implementation of this page periodically by examining accepted and rejected manuscripts, reviewer feedback, author queries, correction requests, indexing requirements, metadata quality, publication timelines, and reader concerns. Such review helps the journal improve consistency, reduce avoidable delays, strengthen author guidance, and maintain confidence in the journal processes.

Where this page overlaps with another policy, the policies should be read together. For example, author instructions connect with publication ethics, peer review, plagiarism, citation accuracy, research data, conflicts of interest, and corrections. Governance connects with indexing, preservation, privacy, DOI, metadata, and website terms. The goal is an integrated publishing framework rather than isolated statements.