Peer Review Policy

 

Purpose

Peer review is an important part of the editorial process at Islamic Sciences. It allows submitted work to be considered by scholars with relevant knowledge of the subject and helps the editors assess its originality, accuracy, argument, use of sources, and contribution to the field.

Peer review is advisory. Responsibility for the final editorial decision remains with the journal's editors.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submission is first considered by the editorial team before external review.

At this stage, editors may consider whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope

  • Presents a recognizable scholarly contribution

  • Meets basic academic and ethical standards

  • Is sufficiently developed for peer review

  • Uses sources and references responsibly

  • Is written and presented clearly enough for academic assessment

  • Complies sufficiently with the journal's submission requirements

A manuscript may be returned for preliminary revision or declined without external review where it is clearly unsuitable for the journal.

This initial decision is not a judgment that the subject itself lacks value; it means that the manuscript, in its submitted form, is not considered appropriate for further journal review.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are sent to scholars selected for their knowledge of the relevant subject.

Reviewer selection may take into account:

  • Subject expertise

  • Research experience

  • Relevant publications

  • Familiarity with the sources, language, discipline, or methodology involved

  • Availability

  • Potential conflicts of interest

The journal seeks reviewers who can provide an independent and informed assessment rather than selecting reviewers solely on the basis of seniority or institutional position.

Independence of Review

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to academic considerations.

Personal disagreement with an author's religious, philosophical, scientific, historical, or intellectual position should not determine the recommendation.

At the same time, reviewers are free to challenge arguments rigorously where they believe that evidence, reasoning, methodology, interpretation, or use of sources is inadequate.

A strong review should explain why a change is needed rather than simply state that the reviewer disagrees.

What Reviewers Consider

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may consider:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Clarity of the research question or argument

  • Quality and coherence of reasoning

  • Engagement with relevant scholarship

  • Accuracy and use of primary sources

  • Methodological appropriateness

  • Treatment of scientific, philosophical, historical, or textual evidence

  • Accuracy of translations and citations where these are central to the argument

  • Structure and clarity

  • Whether conclusions are supported by the evidence presented

  • Ethical concerns where relevant

Not every manuscript will be assessed according to exactly the same criteria. A philosophical essay, textual study, historical article, and empirical research paper naturally require different forms of scholarly judgment.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Provide an objective and constructive assessment

  • Treat the manuscript as confidential

  • Declare relevant conflicts of interest

  • Avoid personal or disrespectful criticism

  • Identify major weaknesses clearly

  • Distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions

  • Avoid requesting citations merely to increase citations to themselves or particular authors

  • Inform the editor where the manuscript falls substantially outside their expertise

  • Not use unpublished arguments or material for their own benefit

  • Inform the journal if they become aware of a significant ethical concern

Reviewers should not share a manuscript or delegate a review to another person without permission from the journal.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential.

Reviewers and editors should not disclose unpublished content, circulate manuscripts, or use material obtained through the review process for personal academic advantage.

Confidential material should also not be uploaded to third-party systems, including public AI tools, where doing so could compromise manuscript confidentiality.

Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer should disclose a relationship or interest that could reasonably affect impartiality.

This may include recent collaboration, close institutional or supervisory relationships, personal relationships, direct academic competition, or another substantial interest in the outcome of the manuscript.

A disclosed relationship does not always make review impossible. The editor will determine whether the conflict is significant enough to require another reviewer.

Reviewer Recommendations

A reviewer may recommend that a manuscript be:

  • Accepted

  • Accepted subject to revision

  • Reconsidered after substantial revision

  • Declined

The precise editorial categories used by the journal may vary according to the circumstances of a submission.

Reviewer recommendations are considered seriously but do not bind the editor. Reviewers may disagree with one another, and editors must sometimes weigh different assessments.

Revision

Where revision is invited, authors should address the main points raised by the reviewers and editors.

Authors are not required to agree automatically with every suggestion. Where an author believes a requested change would be inappropriate, the author may explain the academic reason for retaining the original approach.

A revised manuscript may be returned to one or more original reviewers, considered by a different reviewer, or assessed editorially depending on the extent and nature of the revision.

An invitation to revise does not constitute a guarantee of publication.

Additional Review

The journal may seek an additional review where:

  • Existing reviews differ substantially

  • Specialist expertise is needed

  • A major issue was not addressed in the initial review

  • A revised manuscript has changed significantly

  • An editor requires further academic advice before making a decision

There is no requirement that every manuscript receive exactly the same number of external reports. The appropriate level of review depends upon the manuscript and the questions arising during assessment.

Editorial Decisions

The final decision is made by the journal's editorial leadership after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical issues, and the journal's scholarly priorities.

A positive reviewer recommendation does not automatically require acceptance, and a negative report does not necessarily require rejection where the editor has reasonable academic grounds for a different conclusion.

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the decision is academically defensible and consistent with the journal's standards.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Board Members

A manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or another person closely associated with Islamic Sciencesshould not receive preferential treatment.

Where necessary, editorial responsibility should be transferred to another person who can handle the manuscript independently.

The author concerned should not participate in reviewer selection or the editorial decision on their own manuscript.

Academic Disagreement

Islamic Sciences recognizes that scholarship often involves legitimate disagreement, particularly in areas involving philosophy, theology, science, intellectual history, scriptural interpretation, and the relationship between Islamic intellectual traditions and contemporary knowledge.

Peer review should therefore test the quality of an argument rather than require conformity to a reviewer's own position.

A manuscript may present a controversial or minority interpretation provided that its argument is scholarly, properly supported, responsibly expressed, and relevant to the journal.

Ethical Concerns During Review

If a reviewer or editor notices possible plagiarism, fabricated evidence, serious citation problems, undisclosed conflicts, manipulated research, or another ethical concern, the journal may suspend ordinary review while the matter is examined.

Authors may be asked to provide clarification or supporting information.

The existence of an allegation does not itself establish misconduct.

Respectful Review

Peer review is intended to improve scholarly communication, not to humiliate authors.

Reviewers may be strongly critical of arguments, evidence, or methodology, but comments should remain professional and relevant to the manuscript.

Likewise, authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments professionally even where they disagree.

The Role of Peer Review

Peer review cannot guarantee that every published article is free from error, nor does publication imply that reviewers or editors endorse every conclusion expressed by an author.

Its purpose is to provide serious academic scrutiny before publication and to assist the journal in deciding whether a manuscript makes a sufficiently sound and worthwhile contribution to scholarly discussion.