Peer Review Process

Stage 1 — Editorial Screening

The Managing Editor checks each submission against the formal requirements set out in the Author Guidelines and returns manuscripts that do not meet them for correction. Submissions that pass are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with a subject editor, against three criteria: fit with the journal's Focus and Scope, sufficiency of the evidentiary base, and contribution to existing scholarship. Manuscripts that fail on any of the three are declined at this stage, with reasons given in writing.

Stage 2 — Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the subject, normally holding a doctorate and a record of publication in the field. Review is double-anonymous: reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and manuscripts are anonymised before they are sent out.

Reviewers assess originality and contribution, command of the relevant literature, adequacy of sources and method, soundness of argument, accuracy of citation and translation, and clarity of expression. Each reviewer provides a confidential recommendation to the editors together with comments that the author will see. Where two reviews diverge materially, the handling editor commissions a third.

Reviewers who hold a conflict of interest with respect to a manuscript decline the invitation. Conflicts include recent co-authorship or collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, a supervisory relationship, and any financial or personal interest in the outcome. Reviewers treat manuscripts as confidential, do not circulate or cite them, and do not use their content before publication.

Decisions

Following review, the handling editor recommends one of four outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, or decline. The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on the basis of the reviews and communicates it to the corresponding author with the reviewers' comments attached. Editorial decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief alone and are not delegated to any external body.

Manuscripts returned for major revision are sent back to the original reviewers where possible. Authors submitting a revision provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.

Timeline

From submission to publication, a manuscript normally moves through editorial screening, peer review, revision, and production — copyediting, layout, and proofreading — in four to six months. Manuscripts declined at the screening stage are returned to authors sooner. Authors are kept informed of the status of their submission at each stage.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored by an editor, an editorial board member, or a member of the editorial office are handled by an editor with no connection to the author, who selects reviewers and takes the decision without the author's involvement or knowledge of reviewer identities. The author is excluded from all correspondence and from the editorial management system for the duration. Published articles in this category carry a statement recording how the review was handled.

The journal does not invite or require authors to cite work published in Islamic Studies Review, and reviewers are asked not to recommend citations to the journal unless they are substantively necessary to the argument.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, setting out the specific grounds. Appeals resting on disagreement with a reviewer's judgement are not normally successful; appeals identifying a factual error or a demonstrable conflict of interest are referred to an editor not previously involved, whose decision is final.

Publication Ethics and Misconduct

Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflict of interest, or authorship dispute are investigated following COPE flowcharts. The journal issues corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions as the circumstances require, each linked to the article concerned and permanently accessible.

Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers receive written acknowledgement of each completed report. A list of reviewers who served during the preceding year is published annually, with names included only by consent.