Peer Review Policy

1. Review Model: Double Blind Peer Review
Fikr e Iqbal follows a double blind peer review system, ensuring that:
•    Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
•    Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
•    All manuscripts are evaluated impartially, free from personal, institutional, or ideological bias
This model aligns with international best practices and WoS quality benchmarks.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Every submission undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team to assess:
•    Relevance to the journal’s scope
•    Originality and academic contribution
•    Compliance with ethical and formatting guidelines
•    Plagiarism screening results
Manuscripts failing to meet basic criteria are desk-rejected.
3. Selection of Reviewers
•    Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic credentials, and prior reviewing experience.
•    At least two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript.
•    In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be appointed.
•    Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the research.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
•    Originality and novelty of research
•    Theoretical and conceptual strength
•    Methodological rigour
•    Relevance to Iqbal Studies and the journal’s scope
•    Clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing
•    Contribution to existing scholarship
Reviewers provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to help authors improve their work.
5. Review Timeline
•    Standard review duration: 4–8 weeks
•    Revised manuscripts are evaluated within 2–4 weeks
•    The journal strives to maintain timely communication throughout the process
Delays are communicated transparently to authors.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
•    Maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts
•    Provide objective, unbiased, and scholarly feedback
•    Avoid personal criticism
•    Identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data manipulation
•    Declare any conflict of interest immediately
•    Submit reviews within the agreed timeline
Reviewers must adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
7. Editorial Decision Categories
Based on reviewer reports, the Editor in Chief may decide:
•    Accept
•    Minor Revision
•    Major Revision
•    Resubmit for Review
•    Reject
All decisions are final and based on academic merit.
8. Revision Process
•    Authors must address all reviewer comments point by point.
•    Revised manuscripts must include a Response to Reviewers Document.
•    Failure to adequately address comments may result in rejection.
Revisions are re-evaluated by reviewers or editors depending on the extent of changes.
9. Confidentiality and Integrity
•    All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
•    Reviewers and editors must not use any part of the manuscript for personal research.
•    The journal ensures integrity, transparency, and fairness at every stage.
10. Ethical Compliance
The journal follows:
•    COPE Guidelines
•    HEC Ethical Standards
•    International Publishing Ethics
Any ethical violation (plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data) may lead to:
•    Rejection
•    Retraction
•    Notification to the author’s institution
•    Blacklisting
11. Post Publication Review
In line with our standards, the journal allows:
•    Post publication comments
•    Corrections
•    Retractions (if necessary)
•    Editorial notes
This ensures long-term academic integrity and transparency.
12. Reviewer Recognition
To encourage high-quality reviewing:
•    Reviewers may receive certificates of appreciation
•    Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually
•    Reviewer identities remain confidential unless they opt in for disclosure