Peer Review Process

Overview

Al-Nasr follows a structured peer-review process to maintain academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, methodological strength, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Research Articles submitted to Al-Nasr are processed through a double-blind peer-review system. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential as far as possible. Reviewers do not know the identity of authors, and authors do not know the identity of reviewers. This system helps reduce bias and supports fair academic evaluation.

Book Reviews are evaluated by the editorial team and may be sent for expert review where necessary.

The peer-review process is intended to ensure that published work is original, properly documented, academically sound, ethically responsible, and useful for researchers, teachers, postgraduate scholars, libraries, and academic institutions.

Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to assess whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in Al-Nasr. Reviewers and editors examine the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, argument, methodology, use of sources, citation accuracy, ethical compliance, language clarity, and contribution to knowledge.

Peer review helps the journal to:

• Maintain academic and editorial standards
• Evaluate the originality of submitted manuscripts
• Assess the quality of research design, method, evidence, and argument
• Improve manuscripts through expert feedback
• Identify weaknesses in structure, analysis, sources, or references
• Detect possible ethical concerns
• Ensure relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Support responsible editorial decision-making
• Protect the reliability of the published scholarly record

Peer review is advisory in nature. Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the competent editorial authority of the journal.

Scope of Peer Review

The peer-review process applies primarily to Research Articles.

Research Articles are reviewed for:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of Al-Nasr
• Originality and contribution to knowledge
• Clarity of research problem
• Methodological soundness
• Critical engagement with primary and secondary sources
• Accuracy of quotations, translations, references, and citations
• Quality of analysis and argument
• Ethical compliance
• Academic language and structure
• Suitability for publication

Book Reviews are evaluated by the editorial team. Where a Book Review requires additional subject expertise, the editorial office may send it for expert review.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first examined by the editorial office before being sent for peer review. Initial editorial screening is carried out to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements.

The initial screening may include checking:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
• Correct submission category
• Completeness of submitted files
• Title, abstract, keywords, author details, and affiliations
• English title, English abstract, English keywords, and Roman-script author names for Urdu and Arabic submissions
• Manuscript structure and formatting
• Reference and citation style
• Similarity or plagiarism concerns
• Ethical declarations where required
• Removal of author-identifying information for double-blind review
• General language clarity and academic presentation

A manuscript may be declined at the initial screening stage if it is outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, poorly prepared, ethically problematic, previously published, under review elsewhere, or not suitable for academic peer review.

Initial editorial screening does not guarantee acceptance for peer review or publication.

Similarity and Plagiarism Check

The journal may check submitted manuscripts for similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed translation, excessive overlap, or improper reuse of previously published material.

Similarity reports, where used, are treated as editorial tools. They do not automatically determine acceptance or rejection. Editors interpret similarity results in context and may request clarification, revision, source correction, or further investigation where necessary.

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, fabricated references, duplicate publication, or serious ethical concerns may be rejected at any stage.

Reviewer Selection

Research Articles that pass initial editorial screening may be sent to independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, research background, subject knowledge, methodological expertise, language competence, and absence of conflict of interest.

The journal normally seeks expert review from reviewers who are competent in the manuscript’s subject area. Where reviewer reports are delayed, insufficient, conflicting, or inconclusive, the editor may invite an additional reviewer, seek editorial board advice, or make a decision based on available evidence and editorial assessment.

The editorial office seeks to ensure that reviewers provide fair, objective, constructive, and academically reasoned evaluation.

Number of Reviewers

Research Articles are normally evaluated by expert reviewers appointed by the editorial office. Where possible, the journal seeks more than one independent review before making a final decision on a Research Article.

In some cases, the editor may request an additional review if:

• Reviewer reports are substantially conflicting
• A manuscript requires specialist expertise
• Ethical or methodological concerns arise
• A revised manuscript needs further assessment
• The editor considers additional opinion necessary for a fair decision

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide careful, objective, confidential, and constructive evaluation.

Reviewers should:

• Accept review only when they have relevant expertise
• Complete the review within the requested time or inform the editor if more time is needed
• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process
• Declare any conflict of interest
• Evaluate the manuscript objectively and fairly
• Comment on originality, methodology, argument, sources, structure, references, ethics, and contribution
• Provide clear academic reasons for criticism
• Avoid personal remarks, offensive language, or unsupported judgments
• Identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabricated data, or ethical concerns where visible
• Recommend improvement where appropriate

Reviewers must not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for personal advantage. Reviewers must not share the manuscript with others without permission from the editorial office.

Editor Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for managing the peer-review process fairly and professionally. Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit, journal scope, reviewer reports, ethical requirements, and editorial assessment.

Editors should:

• Conduct or supervise initial screening
• Select suitable reviewers
• Protect reviewer and author confidentiality
• Manage conflicts of interest
• Consider reviewer reports carefully
• Communicate decisions clearly
• Distinguish between required revisions and optional suggestions where possible
• Ensure that publication fee does not influence editorial decisions
• Take appropriate action when ethical concerns arise
• Protect the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record

Editors may reject a manuscript without external review if it does not meet the journal’s basic academic, ethical, technical, or scope requirements.

Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality

Al-Nasr uses double-blind peer review for Research Articles. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file where required. Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors.

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts except as required for the editorial process.

Reviewer identities are protected. Author identities should also be protected from reviewers as far as possible. Confidentiality may be limited only where serious ethical, legal, or scholarly-record concerns require appropriate disclosure.

Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose conflicts of interest that could influence, or appear to influence, academic judgment.

Conflicts may be:

• Financial
• Institutional
• Personal
• Professional
• Supervisory
• Ideological
• Academic
• Competitive

Reviewers should decline a review if they have a conflict of interest or cannot provide an objective assessment. Editors should recuse themselves from handling a manuscript where a conflict could affect editorial judgment.

If a conflict is discovered during or after the review process, the journal may appoint another reviewer, assign another editor, request clarification, or take corrective action.

Review Criteria

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of Al-Nasr?
• Is the research problem clear?
• Is the work original?
• Does the manuscript make a meaningful scholarly contribution?
• Is the methodology appropriate and clearly explained?
• Are primary and secondary sources used responsibly?
• Are quotations, translations, references, and page numbers accurate?
• Is the argument logical, balanced, and evidence-based?
• Is the manuscript analytical rather than merely descriptive?
• Are ethical requirements met?
• Is the language suitable for academic publication?
• Are revisions required before publication?

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, further review, or rejection, but the final decision remains with the editorial authority of the journal.

Editorial Decision Categories

After considering reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to normal copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and production checks.

Minor Revisions Required

The manuscript requires limited changes before acceptance. These may include corrections in wording, references, formatting, clarification, or minor improvement of argument.

Major Revisions Required

The manuscript requires substantial revision. Authors may be asked to improve methodology, structure, analysis, evidence, references, ethical declarations, or language.

Revise and Resubmit

The manuscript requires major reworking and may need to be treated as a substantially revised submission before further consideration.

Send for Additional Review

The editor may seek another review where reports are conflicting, incomplete, delayed, or where specialist assessment is required.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to issues such as weak scholarship, lack of originality, poor methodology, ethical concerns, scope mismatch, insufficient revision, or failure to meet journal standards.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should respond carefully to all reviewer and editorial comments. Authors should submit a revised manuscript along with a clear response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

A revision response should normally include:

• A point-by-point response to reviewer comments
• Explanation of changes made
• Page or section references where changes appear
• Clarification where a recommendation was not followed
• Updated references or evidence where required

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of revisions.

Failure to submit a revision within the requested time may delay the process or result in closure of the submission file.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should identify the manuscript, explain the grounds of appeal, and provide evidence where relevant.

Appeals may be considered where there is evidence of:

• Procedural error
• Misunderstanding of the manuscript
• Possible conflict of interest
• Inaccurate reviewer assessment
• Serious academic grounds requiring reconsideration

Disagreement with reviewer opinion alone is not sufficient. The journal may uphold the original decision, seek additional review, invite revision, or issue a final decision after appeal.

Ethical Concerns During Review

If ethical concerns arise during review, the editorial office may pause the review process and request clarification from authors. The journal may also seek additional review, consult editorial board members, or take other appropriate action.

Ethical concerns may include:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate submission
• Duplicate publication
• Fabricated or falsified data
• False authorship
• Guest, gift, honorary, or ghost authorship
• Citation manipulation
• Peer-review manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Misuse of AI-assisted tools
• Misrepresentation of sources, translations, or evidence
• Ethical approval concerns
• Breach of confidentiality

Where serious concerns are confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected, withdrawn from consideration, corrected, or subject to further editorial action.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. They should not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, or confidential submission material to public AI tools in a way that compromises confidentiality, privacy, or the integrity of the review process.

AI-assisted tools must not replace expert scholarly judgment. Editorial and reviewer assessments must remain the responsibility of qualified human reviewers and editors.

Publication Fee and Editorial Independence

Publication fee is considered only after acceptance. The fee does not influence initial screening, reviewer selection, peer-review reports, editorial decisions, acceptance, rejection, or revision requirements.

Acceptance is never based on payment, personal connection, institutional pressure, or non-academic considerations.

Review Timeline

The time required for peer review may vary according to manuscript quality, subject complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload. The journal seeks to complete the review process within a reasonable time and to communicate decisions through official journal channels.

Authors should respond to editorial queries and revision requests within the given deadline. Delayed responses may extend the review process.

Communication During Review

Official communication regarding submission, review, revision, decision, and production should normally take place through Open Journal Systems (OJS) or through authorized editorial email.

Authors should not rely on informal communication, personal contacts, or third-party assurances as substitutes for the official editorial record.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision on publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the competent editorial authority of Al-Nasr. The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if academic, ethical, legal, technical, or editorial concerns arise.

A manuscript is considered accepted only after an official acceptance decision has been issued by the journal.

Record Keeping

The journal may retain submission files, metadata, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, author responses, revised manuscripts, correspondence, similarity reports where used, proof corrections, publication records, and post-publication notices as part of normal editorial administration.

These records help the journal maintain transparency, explain decisions, resolve queries, protect the scholarly record, and support continuity in editorial management.

The peer-review process of Al-Nasr is designed to support fair evaluation, academic quality, ethical responsibility, and reliable scholarly publication. The journal expects authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to cooperate professionally and to uphold the standards of responsible academic publishing.