Peer Review Process

Overview of the Editorial Process

Research articles normally proceed through the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening: verification of submission requirements, journal scope, originality, and preliminary scholarly suitability.
2. Reviewer Selection: appointment of independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.
3. Double-Anonymous Peer Review: independent and substantive scholarly evaluation.
4. Editorial Decision: assessment of reviewer reports and communication of the decision to the corresponding author.
5. Revision and Reassessment: author responses, manuscript revisions, and further evaluation where required.
6. Final Acceptance and Production: copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and publication.

The journal may discontinue consideration at any stage where a manuscript fails to meet scholarly, editorial, or ethical requirements.

Stage 1 — Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission is first examined by the Managing Editor for compliance with the journal's formal requirements.

This examination includes:

• Compliance with the Author Guidelines .
• Appropriate manuscript category and word length.
• Required abstract, keywords, references, and supporting information.
• Appropriate manuscript anonymisation.
• Submission of relevant ethical declarations.
• Preliminary originality and similarity screening.
• Completeness of submission metadata and required documentation.

Manuscripts that do not comply with the formal submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before scholarly assessment begins.

Submissions that satisfy the formal requirements are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, normally in consultation with a subject editor.

The preliminary scholarly assessment considers the following criteria:

1. Relevance: whether the manuscript fits the journal's Focus and Scope .
2. Originality: whether the manuscript presents an identifiable research problem and a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship.
3. Evidence and Method: whether the manuscript demonstrates a sufficient evidentiary foundation and an appropriate analytical approach.
4. Scholarly Engagement: whether the manuscript engages critically with relevant previous research.
5. Research Integrity: whether the submission satisfies applicable ethical and publication requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined without external peer review. Such decisions are communicated to authors with an explanation of the principal reasons.

Passing editorial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Stage 2 — Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers selected according to their scholarly expertise, publication record, and suitability for evaluating the subject.

Reviewers normally hold a doctoral qualification and have a demonstrated record of scholarly publication in the relevant field. Equivalent expertise may be considered where appropriate.

The editorial office considers the following factors when selecting reviewers:

• Expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, research approach, and disciplinary context.
• A demonstrable record of scholarly research and publication.
• Independence from the authors and their institutions.
• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
• Availability to complete the review within an appropriate period.
• The ability to provide an objective, detailed, and constructive scholarly assessment.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly competence rather than institutional prestige alone.

Where the evaluations of the initial reviewers diverge substantially, the handling editor commissions a third independent review.

Additional reviewers may also be appointed where a manuscript requires specialised methodological, linguistic, historical, or disciplinary expertise.

Double-Anonymous Review and Confidentiality

The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review system to research articles.

Authors must remove names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, and other identifying information from the manuscript prepared for review.

Identifying information must also be removed from document properties and other metadata accessible to reviewers.

Reviewers are not informed of author identities through the review process, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, research data, and editorial correspondence.

Reviewers must not reproduce, circulate, publicly discuss, cite, or otherwise use unpublished manuscript content without appropriate authorisation.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of the review process.

The editorial office takes reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the anonymous review process while maintaining appropriate administrative records.

Stage 3 — Substantive Peer Review

Peer reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts through independent reading and critical scholarly examination.

Reviews must address the substance of the research rather than concentrating exclusively on language, formatting, or presentation.

Scholarly Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

1. Originality and Scholarly Contribution: the originality of the research problem, clarity of the contribution, and significance of the findings for existing scholarship.
2. Engagement with Previous Research: the adequacy, relevance, and critical treatment of the scholarly literature.
3. Research Problem and Objectives: the clarity of the research questions, objectives, or central analytical argument.
4. Sources and Methodology: the suitability of the research approach, reliability of the evidence, and transparency of the analytical procedure.
5. Depth of Analysis: the quality of interpretation, strength of reasoning, and integration of evidence with scholarly argument.
6. Findings and Discussion: the clarity, significance, and critical interpretation of the principal findings.
7. Conclusions: the extent to which conclusions address the research objectives and demonstrate the contribution of the manuscript.
8. References and Source Accuracy: the accuracy of citations, quotations, translations, transliterations, and bibliographical information.
9. Research Ethics: compliance with applicable ethical standards, consent requirements, confidentiality obligations, and research integrity principles.
10. Organisation and Expression: the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the manuscript's presentation.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts in relation to their disciplinary and methodological characteristics.

Historical, textual, legal, ethnographic, philosophical, and other forms of research may require different approaches to assessing sources, methods, and arguments.

The journal does not require all manuscripts to follow an identical methodological or structural model.

Review Reports and Recommendations

Each reviewer provides a written assessment of the manuscript through the journal's editorial management system.

Review reports should identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted research.

Substantive comments should explain the reasons for the assessment and provide recommendations that can guide manuscript improvement.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between essential revisions and optional improvements.

Where relevant, reports should identify:

• Weaknesses in the formulation of the research problem.
• Gaps in engagement with previous scholarship.
• Problems concerning the reliability or interpretation of evidence.
• Inadequacies in research design or analytical methods.
• Unsupported claims or inconsistencies in the argument.
• Areas requiring deeper analysis or clearer scholarly justification.
• Concerns relating to research ethics, citation accuracy, or integrity.

Reviewers submit a recommendation to the handling editor together with comments intended for the author.

Confidential comments intended exclusively for the editor must be clearly distinguished from comments shared with authors.

Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the final editorial decision.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Islamic Studies Review prohibits the use of artificial intelligence or generative AI tools by reviewers during the manuscript assessment process.

Reviewers must not use AI systems to:

• Analyse or interpret manuscript content.
• Summarise submitted research.
• Assess originality, scholarly quality, research methodology, or findings.
• Generate review comments or editorial recommendations.
• Draft, rewrite, or prepare peer-review reports.
• Process unpublished research data or confidential manuscript materials.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, excerpts, tables, figures, unpublished data, or confidential review materials to AI applications.

Peer-review reports must reflect the reviewer's own scholarly expertise, independent assessment, and professional judgement.

Editors may use appropriate AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative purposes where confidentiality and data protection can be maintained. Such tools must not replace independent editorial judgement or determine acceptance or rejection.

Any permitted editorial use of AI must comply with the journal's transparency and disclosure requirements.

Further requirements are provided in the Publication Ethics and Author Guidelines .

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose potential financial, institutional, professional, or personal conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

Relevant conflicts may include:

• Recent co-authorship or research collaboration with an author.
• Shared institutional affiliation.
• Current or recent supervisory relationships.
• Financial interests connected to the research outcome.
• Personal or professional relationships that could compromise impartiality.
• Direct involvement in the research being evaluated.

Reviewers with relevant conflicts must decline the invitation and notify the editorial office.

Reviewers must not exploit confidential information or unpublished research findings for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not request citations to their own work or to articles published in ISR unless those references are substantively relevant to the manuscript.

The journal does not require authors to cite its publications as a condition of manuscript acceptance.

Stage 4 — Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The journal normally uses four categories of editorial decisions:

1. Accept: the manuscript meets the scholarly and editorial requirements and may proceed towards publication.
2. Minor Revision: the manuscript is considered suitable for publication subject to limited corrections or clarifications.
3. Major Revision: substantial changes are required to strengthen the evidence, methodology, analysis, argument, or scholarly contribution.
4. Decline: the manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in the journal.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision, except where a conflict of interest requires an independent editor to assume decision-making responsibility.

Decisions are informed by peer-review reports, editorial assessment, and the journal's scholarly and ethical standards.

The corresponding author receives the editorial decision together with the relevant anonymised reviewer comments.

Acceptance is not automatic merely because reviewers have recommended publication.

Stage 5 — Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must address the editorial and reviewer comments carefully.

Revised submissions must include:

• A revised manuscript incorporating the proposed improvements.
• A point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
• An explanation of changes made to the manuscript.
• A scholarly justification where the authors disagree with a recommendation.

Authors should respond to each substantive comment clearly and respectfully.

Disagreement with a reviewer is permissible when supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning.

Minor Revisions

Manuscripts requiring minor revision may be reassessed by the handling editor. Additional reviewer consultation may be requested where necessary.

Major Revisions

Manuscripts requiring major revision are normally returned to the original reviewers where possible.

Reviewers may be asked to determine whether substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.

Where the original reviewers are unavailable, the editorial office may appoint alternative qualified reviewers.

Further rounds of revision may be requested when necessary.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Stage 6 — Final Acceptance and Production

Manuscripts that meet the required scholarly and ethical standards may receive final acceptance from the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor.

Following acceptance, manuscripts proceed through the journal's production process.

Production normally includes:

1. Substantive and language copyediting.
2. Reference and metadata verification.
3. Preparation of the final article layout.
4. Verification of required ethical declarations.
5. Author proofreading.
6. Final publication and DOI registration.

The editorial office may request clarification or correction where substantial inconsistencies or ethical concerns are identified during production.

Final acceptance does not prevent the journal from investigating subsequently identified concerns about research integrity.

Editorial and Publication Timeline

Under normal circumstances, the editorial and publication process takes approximately four to six months from submission to publication.

This period includes initial editorial screening, peer review, manuscript revision, final editorial assessment, copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading.

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the research, the extent of revisions, and the journal's publication schedule.

Manuscripts declined during initial screening are normally returned to authors earlier.

Authors are informed of significant editorial decisions and may contact the editorial office regarding the status of their submissions.

The estimated timeline does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specified period.

Editorial Documentation and Accountability

The journal uses an online journal management system to administer manuscript submissions and editorial processing.

The editorial record should document the principal stages of manuscript assessment, including:

• Submission and screening records.
• Reviewer invitations and assignments.
• Completed review reports.
• Editorial decisions.
• Manuscript revisions.
• Author responses to reviewers.
• Relevant editorial correspondence.
• Final acceptance and production records.

Editorial records are maintained for quality assurance, accountability, and appropriate verification of the peer-review process.

Access to confidential records is restricted to authorised editorial personnel and other parties with a legitimate basis for access.

The journal does not publicly disclose confidential review reports or reviewer identities without appropriate authorisation.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editorial board members, or editorial office personnel are subject to the same scholarly and ethical standards as all other submissions.

Individuals with a personal or professional interest in a submitted manuscript must not participate in its editorial assessment, reviewer selection, or publication decision.

Such manuscripts are assigned to a qualified independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The independent editor oversees reviewer selection, assessment, revisions, and the final decision, without intervention from the author concerned.

Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author, editorial decision-making authority for that manuscript is transferred to an independent editor.

The author concerned is excluded from access to confidential review records and editorial decisions concerning their submission, beyond the information ordinarily available to authors.

Published articles in this category include an appropriate statement explaining how editorial independence was maintained.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Appeals must identify specific grounds for reconsideration, supported by relevant evidence.

Appropriate grounds may include:

• Demonstrable factual errors affecting the editorial decision.
• Significant procedural irregularities.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Material misunderstandings of the submitted research.

Disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly judgement alone does not normally constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.

Where an appeal warrants independent reassessment, it is referred to an editor who was not involved in the original decision.

The independent editor reviews the grounds and relevant editorial records before reaching a decision.

The outcome of the appeal is communicated in writing to the corresponding author.

Further information is available in the journal's Publication Ethics .

Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct

The journal follows relevant COPE guidance when addressing suspected misconduct involving submitted or published manuscripts.

Ethical concerns may include:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate source attribution.
• Fabrication or falsification of research evidence.
• Duplicate or simultaneous submission.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Inappropriate authorship practices.
• Manipulation of peer review or citations.
• Breaches of manuscript confidentiality.
• Prohibited use of artificial intelligence.
• Research conducted without required ethical safeguards.

Allegations are assessed by the editorial office according to their nature and supporting evidence.

The journal may consult relevant institutions or other appropriate authorities where necessary.

Depending on the findings, appropriate action may include manuscript rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

Post-publication notices are linked to the affected articles and remain accessible as part of the scholarly record.

Reviewer Recognition

Islamic Studies Review recognises the essential contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the scholarly quality and integrity of the journal.

Reviewers receive written acknowledgement for completed review reports.

The journal publishes an annual acknowledgement of reviewers who contributed during the preceding year, subject to their consent.

Public acknowledgement does not identify the specific manuscripts reviewed by individual reviewers and must not compromise the double-anonymous review process.

Commitment to Scholarly Quality

The peer-review process of Islamic Studies Review is designed to support independent scholarly judgement, substantive manuscript improvement, editorial accountability, and research integrity.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold the standards of confidentiality, fairness, transparency, and academic responsibility established by the journal.

Additional information concerning manuscript preparation, ethical requirements, and journal policies is available through:

• Author Guidelines
• Publication Ethics
• Submission Preparation Checklist
• Editorial Contact