Peer Review Process

MILLATI: Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities is committed to maintaining the integrity, academic rigor, fairness, and transparency of its editorial and peer review procedures. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. All research manuscripts considered for publication undergo an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission.

The peer review process is intended to assess the originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, and overall quality of submitted manuscripts while providing constructive feedback to support the advancement of research in Islamic studies and the humanities.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team. This assessment considers:

  • Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope: Whether the manuscript addresses subjects and scholarly questions appropriate to MILLATI.
  • Originality and academic contribution: Whether the manuscript presents a substantive research contribution and engages meaningfully with existing scholarship.
  • Manuscript preparation: Whether the submission complies with the Author Guidelines, including the prescribed manuscript structure, length, referencing style, and formatting requirements.
  • Research integrity: Whether there are concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, research ethics, or other possible breaches of scholarly integrity.
  • Scholarly quality: Whether the research problem, argument, methods, and presentation demonstrate sufficient academic merit to warrant external review.
  • Anonymization: Whether the manuscript has been appropriately prepared for double-blind review.

The editorial team may use appropriate similarity-checking and research-integrity screening tools. Similarity reports are assessed contextually and are not treated as automatic proof of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's basic requirements may be returned for technical correction or declined at this stage without proceeding to external peer review. Decisions made during initial screening are communicated to the corresponding author.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

MILLATI employs a double-blind review procedure to minimize the influence of author identity, institutional affiliation, academic position, or personal relationships on scholarly evaluation. Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not receive identifying information about the authors.
  • Authors do not receive identifying information about the reviewers.
  • The editorial team manages author and reviewer information confidentially through the journal's OJS platform.
  • Reviewers assess manuscripts on the basis of their scholarly content and academic merit.

Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file, including names, affiliations, email addresses, identifying acknowledgments, and document properties. Such information should be entered separately through the OJS submission system. Authors should present references to their own previous publications in a neutral manner that does not unnecessarily reveal authorship. Although the journal takes reasonable steps to maintain anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where the subject matter or previously published research makes an author's identity recognizable.

3. Selection and Appointment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's research area.
  • Knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature, research approaches, and analytical traditions.
  • Ability to assess the intellectual and methodological quality of the submission.
  • Independence and absence of competing interests that could compromise impartial evaluation.
  • Availability and willingness to provide a substantive review within the agreed period.

Where appropriate, the editorial team may seek reviewers with complementary disciplinary expertise to ensure that interdisciplinary manuscripts receive balanced and informed evaluations. For research involving classical Islamic scholarship, historical sources, Arabic texts, or manuscripts, particular consideration may be given to reviewers familiar with the relevant textual traditions, languages, and methods of interpretation.

Reviewers should ordinarily be independent of the authors' institutions and should not have recent collaborative, supervisory, financial, or other relationships that could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The editorial team may appoint additional reviewers when the subject matter requires specialized evaluation or when the initial assessments differ substantially.

4. Criteria for Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts critically, fairly, and constructively. Assessments should address the scholarly merits of the research rather than the personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, or academic reputation of the authors. Reviewers are asked to consider the following criteria:

  • Originality and Scholarly Contribution: Does the manuscript offer a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge, interpretation, theory, methodology, or scholarly debate? Is the originality of the research clearly established?
  • Research Problem and Scholarly Significance: Are the research questions, objectives, and central argument clearly articulated? Does the study address an academically significant problem relevant to Islamic studies or the humanities?
  • Engagement with Previous Scholarship: Does the manuscript critically engage with relevant literature, including significant primary sources, foundational scholarship, and contemporary academic research where appropriate?
  • Research Methods and Analytical Rigor: Are the methods, sources, and analytical procedures appropriate to the research problem and adequately explained? Is the interpretation supported by credible and appropriately examined evidence?
  • Results, Interpretation, and Discussion: Are the findings or arguments presented coherently and critically? Does the discussion explain their significance and relate them meaningfully to existing scholarship and theoretical perspectives?
  • Structure and Academic Presentation: Is the manuscript logically organized, clearly written, and consistent in its use of scholarly terminology, citations, transliteration, and relevant disciplinary conventions?
  • Research Integrity and Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript demonstrate appropriate scholarly acknowledgment, responsible use of sources, and compliance with applicable research ethics requirements?

Reviewers should recognize disciplinary and methodological differences. Historical, philosophical, textual, ethnographic, and other forms of humanities scholarship must be evaluated according to standards appropriate to their respective research traditions.

5. Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality, independence, objectivity, and professional integrity throughout the evaluation process. Reviewers must:

  • Treat submitted manuscripts and all associated information as confidential.
  • Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting a review assignment.
  • Decline an invitation when they lack the relevant expertise or cannot provide a review within the agreed period.
  • Provide evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessments.
  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory judgments, or unsupported allegations.
  • Refrain from using unpublished information, arguments, or research findings for personal or professional advantage.
  • Avoid requesting unnecessary citations to their own publications or those of associates.
  • Notify the editorial team of suspected research misconduct or significant ethical concerns.
  • Obtain editorial permission before involving another person in the review.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research material, or review reports to publicly accessible platforms or external generative artificial intelligence systems without explicit authorization from the editorial office and appropriate safeguards. Peer review recommendations must reflect the reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment. MILLATI expects reviewers to observe the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following the receipt of reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates the assessments and considers their implications for the manuscript's scholarly quality and suitability for publication. The editorial decision may fall into one of the following categories:

  • Acceptance: The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and may proceed toward publication, subject to any necessary editorial or production corrections.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered potentially suitable for publication but requires limited clarification, correction, or improvement before a final decision can be made.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript demonstrates scholarly potential but requires substantial improvements to its argument, analytical framework, evidence, methods, structure, or engagement with existing literature.
  • Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards, falls outside its scholarly priorities, or presents deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. An editorial rejection may also occur before external peer review when the submission fails to satisfy the initial screening requirements.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized, non-conflicted editor, taking into account reviewer recommendations, editorial evaluation, and the journal's publication standards. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine it. Where reviews conflict materially, the editor may seek additional expert evaluation or provide a reasoned decision based on the available evidence.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editorial team. Revised submissions must include:

  • An updated manuscript incorporating the necessary revisions.
  • A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.
  • A clear scholarly justification for any recommendation that has not been adopted.
  • A revised manuscript that remains appropriately anonymized for any subsequent peer review.

Revision Deadlines
MILLATI establishes the following deadlines for submitting revised manuscripts:

  • Minor Revisions: 30 calendar days from the date of the editorial decision notification.
  • Major Revisions: 60 calendar days from the date of the editorial decision notification.

Authors are expected to submit their revised manuscripts and accompanying response documents through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform within the specified period. Authors who require additional time must request an extension through the editorial office before the revision deadline expires, providing a reasonable explanation. Extension requests will be considered individually and are subject to editorial approval. Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the prescribed period, without an approved extension, may result in the submission being closed or declined following appropriate editorial notification.

Reassessment of Revised Manuscripts
The editorial team may assess revised manuscripts directly or return them to the original reviewers or additional experts when further scholarly evaluation is necessary. The extent of reassessment depends on the significance of the revisions and the outstanding scholarly concerns. Manuscripts may undergo more than one round of revision. Any subsequent revision deadlines will be communicated in the relevant editorial decision letter. An invitation to revise does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. The final decision remains subject to satisfactory scholarly assessment and the journal's editorial requirements.

8. Review Duration and Editorial Communication

MILLATI is committed to conducting editorial screening and peer review in a timely, transparent, and academically rigorous manner.

Initial Editorial Screening
Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment to determine their relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope, compliance with submission requirements, and suitability for external peer review. The journal aims to complete this preliminary assessment within 21 calendar days of submission. Manuscripts requiring technical corrections or additional editorial clarification may take longer to complete the screening stage.

External Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly expertise. Reviewers are ordinarily invited to complete their evaluations within approximately four to six weeks of accepting the review invitation, subject to their availability and the complexity of the manuscript. The journal recognizes that external review may require additional time, particularly for interdisciplinary research, historical investigations, manuscript-based scholarship, and studies requiring specialized linguistic or methodological expertise.

Editorial Decisions and Communication
Following the receipt of the required reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates the assessments and communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal's OJS platform. The time required to reach a first decision following external peer review may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for additional expert assessments. Where substantial delays arise, the editorial office will endeavor to inform the corresponding author of the reasons and provide an updated estimate where possible. Authors may contact the editorial office to inquire about a delayed submission or request withdrawal of a manuscript that remains under consideration. The journal does not guarantee acceptance, a particular editorial decision date, or publication within a specified period. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the same scholarly and ethical standards, regardless of their intended publication issue.

Monitoring Submission Progress
Authors may monitor their manuscript's editorial status through their registered OJS accounts. All official communications concerning reviewer comments, editorial decisions, revision deadlines, extension requests, and manuscript withdrawal should be conducted through the journal's designated submission and editorial communication channels.

Prolonged Delays and Manuscript Withdrawal
MILLATI aims to process manuscripts in a timely and transparent manner. If no first editorial decision has been communicated within six months of receipt of a complete manuscript submission, the corresponding author has the right to request withdrawal of the manuscript in writing through the journal's official communication channels. Where substantial delays occur, the editorial office will inform the corresponding author of the reasons and provide an updated status where possible. Withdrawal requests made under this provision will be handled promptly and will not incur a withdrawal fee. Authors must submit a written withdrawal request before submitting the same manuscript to another journal. MILLATI will acknowledge withdrawal requests promptly and handle them in accordance with applicable publication ethics guidance.

9. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All manuscripts under consideration are treated as confidential scholarly submissions. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or other confidential materials to unauthorized parties. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance, integrity, and the journal's publication requirements. They must not be influenced by financial considerations, personal relationships, institutional interests, or the authors' academic standing.

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage competing interests. When an editor has a significant personal, professional, or institutional connection to a submission, responsibility for its evaluation and decision should be transferred to another suitably qualified and non-conflicted editor. Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team must undergo independent editorial handling and the same substantive peer review requirements as other submissions. Any applicable publication charges are separate from editorial evaluation and do not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involved a significant procedural irregularity, factual misunderstanding, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other substantive problem may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official Contact page.

An appeal should clearly identify the manuscript and explain the grounds for requesting reconsideration, supported by relevant evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer's academic judgment, without substantive grounds, does not in itself justify reconsideration. Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or, where a conflict of interest exists, another appropriately qualified editor who was not responsible for the disputed decision, where practicable. The editorial office may seek additional expert advice when necessary. An appeal does not automatically result in a new round of peer review or reversal of the original decision. Concerns involving research misconduct or publication ethics are considered in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy and relevant COPE guidance.

11. Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it proceeds to the journal's editorial production stages, which may include copyediting, bibliographic verification, language editing, layout preparation, and proof correction. Authors may be asked to clarify or correct information during production to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the published article. Acceptance does not authorize substantive changes to the research findings or arguments without appropriate editorial consideration. The timing and sequence of publication are determined by the editorial office in accordance with the journal's publishing arrangements.

12. Commitment to Peer Review Quality

MILLATI is committed to maintaining a peer review process that is rigorous, constructive, impartial, and appropriate to the diverse intellectual traditions represented in Islamic studies and the humanities. The journal periodically reviews its editorial procedures to strengthen scholarly evaluation, research integrity, reviewer accountability, and transparency.

For further information, authors should consult the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, and other relevant editorial policies.