Review Process

PEER REVIEW POLICY AND PROCESS
1۔ PEER REVIEW POLICY
Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and plays a vital role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, credibility, and reputation of a research journal. JIHAT UL ISLAM is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, impartial, and confidential peer review process in accordance with recognized standards of scholarly publishing and the applicable policies and guidelines of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan.
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially assessed by the editorial team and, if found suitable, are subsequently evaluated by independent subject experts.
JIHAT UL ISLAM is a biannual (semi-annual) research journal and publishes two issues each year, ordinarily in June and December. Manuscripts may be submitted and processed throughout the year. The publication of an accepted manuscript in a particular issue is subject to successful completion of the editorial and peer review process, timely submission of revisions, fulfillment of publication requirements, and the journal's editorial schedule.
2۔ INITIAL SCREENING AND DESK REVIEW
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening or desk review before being considered for external peer review. The purpose of the desk review is to determine whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal and meets the journal's basic academic, ethical, technical, and formatting requirements.
★ Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
★ Originality and potential scholarly contribution
★ Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
★ Appropriateness of research methodology and research design
★ Quality and clarity of argumentation, analysis, and presentation
★ Adequacy and relevance of references and scholarly literature
★ Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements
★ Similarity/plagiarism screening, where applicable
★ Overall suitability for further consideration
A manuscript that does not meet the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to the author for technical corrections or declined at the desk-review stage without being sent for external peer review.
The initial screening and desk review normally takes approximately 1–3 weeks, depending on the nature of the submission and editorial workload.
3۔ DOUBLE-BLIND EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are considered for external peer review under the journal's double-blind peer review system.
★ Author Anonymity
Authors must remove their names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, personal identifiers, and other information that may disclose their identity from the anonymized manuscript submitted for peer review.
★ Editorial Anonymization
The editorial office may further anonymize a manuscript before sending it to reviewers if identifying information is inadvertently included.
★ Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts assigned to them and must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished material contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
4۔ SELECTION OF REVIEWERS
Reviewers are selected by the editorial team on the basis of subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, independence, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript.
★ Reviewer Eligibility Criteria
Reviewers should normally possess a PhD or an equivalent advanced academic or professional qualification in a relevant discipline.
★ Subject Expertise
Reviewers should have demonstrable expertise and research experience in the subject area of the manuscript and preferably have scholarly publications in recognized academic journals or reputable scholarly outlets.
★ Reviewer Independence
Reviewers should be independent of the author(s) and, as far as reasonably possible, should not have a relationship that may create an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
★ Institutional Independence
Reviewers should not normally be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s).
★ Methodological Competence
Where relevant, reviewers should possess sufficient methodological expertise to evaluate the research design, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions.
★ Confidentiality and Timeliness
Reviewers must agree to maintain confidentiality and provide an objective, constructive, and timely review.
The journal reserves the right to determine the number and geographical distribution of reviewers in accordance with applicable HEC requirements and the journal's editorial policy.
5۔ NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PEER REVIEW
Where required under the applicable HEC recognition category or journal policy, manuscripts may be evaluated by suitably qualified national and/or international reviewers.
★ National Review
National reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, research credentials, disciplinary relevance, and independence from the author(s).
★ International Review
International reviewers are selected from outside Pakistan, where applicable, based on subject specialization, academic standing, research publications, and absence of conflicts of interest.
The selection of reviewers is made independently by the editorial team. Authors do not have the right to select or appoint reviewers for their own manuscripts.
Where the journal permits authors to identify individuals who may have a conflict of interest, such information is treated only as an advisory declaration and does not bind the editorial team.
6۔ REVIEW CRITERIA
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive scholarly comments.
★ Originality and Significance
The manuscript should present original research, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly contribution relevant to the journal's scope.
★ Research Objectives
The research objectives, questions, or hypotheses should be clearly defined and academically meaningful.
★ Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
The manuscript should demonstrate an appropriate theoretical, conceptual, or analytical framework.
★ Research Quality and Methodology
The methodology and research design should be appropriate, clearly explained, and consistent with the objectives of the study.
★ Data and Analysis
Where applicable, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation should be methodologically sound and academically reliable.
★ Arguments and Conclusions
Arguments should be logical and coherent, and conclusions should be supported by the evidence and analysis presented.
★ Scholarly Contribution
The manuscript should make a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship, academic debate, or professional knowledge.
★ References and Literature
References should be relevant, appropriate, sufficiently comprehensive, and accurately presented.
★ Quality of Presentation
The manuscript should be well organized, clearly written, and suitable for scholarly publication.
★ Ethical Compliance
The manuscript should comply with applicable standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and responsible scholarly conduct.
7۔ REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS
After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:
★ Accept without Revision
The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive changes.
★ Accept Subject to Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not substantially affect its main arguments or methodology.
★ Reconsider after Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered further.
★ Resubmit for Further Review
The revised manuscript should undergo another round of peer review before a final decision is made.
★ Reject/Decline
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication due to serious academic, methodological, ethical, or substantive deficiencies.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor or Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports, the quality and relevance of the manuscript, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial policies.
8۔ REVIEW TIMELINE
Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within approximately 4–6 weeks of accepting a review invitation.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the stipulated period, the editorial office may send a reminder, grant a reasonable extension, or appoint an alternative reviewer to avoid unnecessary delays.
The journal makes reasonable efforts to complete the peer review process efficiently; however, review timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and other editorial considerations.
9۔ REVISION OF MANUSCRIPTS
Where revisions are required, the corresponding author is provided with the relevant reviewer and/or editorial comments.
★ Revised Manuscript
Authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript incorporating the required changes.
★ Point-by-Point Response
Authors should provide a detailed response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
★ Tracked or Highlighted Changes
Where requested, authors should clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
★ Minor Revision
Minor revisions should normally be submitted within 1–2 weeks.
★ Major Revision
Major revisions should normally be submitted within 2–4 weeks.
An extension may be granted upon a reasonable request. Failure to submit a revision within the specified or mutually agreed period may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn or requiring reconsideration as a new submission.
10۔ ASSESSMENT OF REVISED MANUSCRIPTS
Revised manuscripts are assessed to determine whether the reviewers' and editors' comments have been addressed satisfactorily.
★ Internal Reassessment
The revised manuscript may be assessed internally by the Editor or a designated Editorial Board member.
★ Return to Original Reviewer(s)
Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewer(s) for further assessment.
★ Additional Review
The manuscript may be sent to additional reviewer(s) if further expert assessment is considered necessary.
Further revisions may be requested if the editorial team determines that the authors have not adequately addressed substantive reviewer comments.
11۔ FINAL EDITORIAL DECISION
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor or authorized editorial authority of the journal after consideration of the peer review reports, authors' responses, revised manuscript, ethical requirements, and overall scholarly quality.
Acceptance of a manuscript does not automatically guarantee publication in the immediately forthcoming issue. Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication according to the journal's biannual publication cycle, production capacity, completion of editorial requirements, and order of final acceptance.
12۔ ESTIMATED PEER REVIEW AND PUBLICATION WORKFLOW
★ Step 1 — Manuscript Submission
Estimated Time: Day 0
★ Step 2 — Initial Screening and Desk Review
Estimated Time: Approximately 1–3 weeks
★ Step 3 — Assignment to External Reviewers
Estimated Time: Following successful desk review
★ Step 4 — External Peer Review
Estimated Time: Approximately 4–6 weeks
★ Step 5 — Communication of Editorial/Review Decision
Estimated Time: Approximately 1 week after receipt of sufficient review reports
★ Step 6 — Minor Revision
Estimated Time: Normally 1–2 weeks
★ Step 7 — Major Revision
Estimated Time: Normally 2–4 weeks
★ Step 8 — Assessment of Revised Manuscript
Estimated Time: Approximately 1–3 weeks
★ Step 9 — Additional Review, if Required
Estimated Time: Approximately 2–4 weeks
★ Step 10 — Final Editorial Decision
Estimated Time: Normally within 1 week after completion of the required review and revision process
★ Step 11 — Copyediting, Proofreading and Production
Estimated Time: According to the production schedule of the forthcoming issue
★ Step 12 — Publication
Estimated Time: Two issues annually, ordinarily in June and December
These timelines are estimates and may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, availability of suitable reviewers, responsiveness of authors, number of revision rounds, and editorial requirements.
13۔ PUBLICATION FREQUENCY
JIHAT UL ISLAM is published biannually (semi-annually), with two regular issues per calendar year.
★ Issue 1: January–June
Ordinarily published by the end of June.
★ Issue 2: July–December
Ordinarily published by the end of December.
The peer review and editorial processing of manuscripts operate throughout the year. Manuscripts completing the review and production process after the editorial cut-off for a particular issue may be scheduled for the subsequent issue.
14۔ AUTHOR-SUGGESTED REVIEWERS
To safeguard editorial independence and the integrity of the peer review process, the journal does not ordinarily rely upon authors to select reviewers for their own manuscripts.
Reviewer selection and appointment remain the responsibility of the editorial team. All reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant expertise, independence, academic credentials, and absence of known conflicts of interest.
15۔ CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect their ability to evaluate a manuscript objectively.
★ Reviewer Conflict of Interest
A reviewer should decline a review assignment where a conflict of interest exists, including circumstances involving close personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, financial, or collaborative relationships with the author(s).
★ Editorial Conflict of Interest
Where an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, responsibility for handling that manuscript should be transferred to another suitably qualified editor or Editorial Board member.
16۔ CONFIDENTIALITY
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, editorial staff, and reviewers must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to unauthorized persons.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information, arguments, interpretations, or data obtained through the peer review process for personal research or advantage without appropriate permission.
17۔ REVIEWER ANONYMITY
Under the double-blind peer review model, the journal makes reasonable efforts to protect the identities of both authors and reviewers.
Authors should avoid including self-identifying information in anonymized manuscripts, and reviewers should avoid including identifying information in their review reports.
Absolute anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where research topics, datasets, citations, or publicly available working papers may indirectly reveal an author's identity. Nevertheless, all participants are expected to respect the journal's double-blind review procedures.
18۔ RESUBMISSION AFTER PEER REVIEW
Most manuscripts require at least one round of revision before a final decision is reached. Authors are expected to respond carefully and systematically to all reviewer and editorial comments.
★ Revised Manuscript
A complete revised version of the manuscript should be submitted.
★ Response to Reviewers
A point-by-point response should explain how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
★ Scholarly Justification
Where a reviewer recommendation has not been followed, the author should provide a reasoned scholarly justification.
Submitting a revised manuscript does not constitute acceptance for publication. The revised manuscript remains subject to editorial assessment and, where necessary, further external peer review.
19۔ APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS
JIHAT UL ISLAM is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process.
Authors, readers, reviewers, and other concerned parties may submit a formal appeal or complaint concerning:
★ Editorial Decisions
Appeals concerning rejection or other editorial decisions.
★ Peer Review Concerns
Complaints regarding alleged procedural irregularities or unfairness in peer review.
★ Publication Ethics
Concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, or other ethical matters.
★ Harm Arising from Published Material
Complaints concerning material alleged to have caused harm to an individual, institution, or other party.
★ Conflicts of Interest
Concerns regarding undisclosed or improperly managed conflicts of interest.
An appeal against a rejection decision must provide a clear and reasoned justification explaining why reconsideration is requested. Mere disagreement with reviewers' comments or the editorial decision does not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.
Appeals and complaints are considered independently and, where appropriate, may be referred to an Editorial Board member or another qualified person who was not directly involved in the original decision.
Following assessment, the journal may uphold the original decision, request further review, reconsider the manuscript, initiate corrective action, or take any other action considered appropriate under the circumstances.
Appeals and complaints should be submitted to the journal's official editorial email address as displayed on the journal website.
20۔ LANGUAGE EDITING
Authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts submitted to the journal are written in clear, accurate, and academically appropriate language.
Manuscripts should be free from significant spelling, typographical, grammatical, and syntactical errors.
Authors who are not proficient in the language of their manuscript are encouraged to obtain appropriate language editing or proofreading assistance before submission.
Language editing does not guarantee acceptance, and responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript remains with the author(s).
21۔ EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE
Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and suitability of manuscripts for the journal.
Decisions concerning manuscripts are made independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal background, or other irrelevant considerations.
The journal is committed to ensuring that commercial considerations, publication charges, institutional relationships, or other external interests do not improperly influence peer review or editorial decisions.
22۔ PUBLICATION CHARGES AND PEER REVIEW
Where the journal charges an Article Processing Charge (APC) or other publication fee, payment of such charges does not influence the peer review process or guarantee acceptance.
Any applicable publication charges are communicated separately in accordance with the journal's published policies. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on academic and editorial considerations.
23۔ POLICY REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE
This Peer Review Policy is periodically reviewed and may be updated to remain consistent with applicable requirements of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, recognized principles of publication ethics, and evolving international standards of scholarly publishing.
Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with the version of the policy applicable at the relevant stage of manuscript processing.