Peer-Review Policy

Islamic Studies is an internationally double blind peer-reviewed quarterly research journal. Peer review is quite vital to the process of evaluation as it helps ensuring the quality of research articles being considered for publication. Islamic Studies values its reviewers’ contribution toward making it one of the respected journals in the field. As a principle, we take reviewer’s comments in confidence and do not reveal the identity of the reviewer(s) and the author(s). We, therefore, expect frank and candid judgment by the reviewer(s). We also appreciate constructive suggestions for revisions and improvement of research articles. Articles published in Islamic Studies are evaluated at least by two International and one national reviewer. We expect from our reviewers to send their valuable comments back to us within four weeks. However, review process may take three to six months. Islamic Studies offers a modest remuneration to its reviewers in cash or kind as a token payment.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The following points are intended to help guide reviewer's comments during the process of review, but they are not meant to be restrictive. Reviewers' comments that cover the following points greatly help us to decide about  publication of an article:

  • A brief description of the main argument of the paper
  • Critical analysis of its strengths and weaknesses
  • The quality and significance of the research
  • Its originality and relation to existing works in the field
  • Any problems regarding citations, terminology, accuracy, etc.
  • Structure, organization, and presentation of the material
  • Recommendation on
    • whether the article deserves to be published as it stands
    • to be published with minor revisions
    • to be resubmitted after reworking
    • to be rejected [on the basis of: lack of originality, scholarship, plagiarism, sectarian or hate material, etc.]  
  • Recommendations for revision (please indicate whether these are fundamental to the project’s success or discretionary issues that should not affect the publication decision. Please specifically mention if any sections should be cut or expanded).