Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy for Urdu Research Journal: ارمغانِ سرحد

Urdu Research Journal: ارمغانِ سرحد follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic standards of all articles published. This Peer Review Policy outlines the journal’s approach to manuscript evaluation, reviewer responsibilities, and the overall process to maintain transparency and fairness.

1. Peer Review Process

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system for all submitted manuscripts. In this system, both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential to ensure impartial and unbiased reviews.

  • Double-Blind Review: Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors to avoid any influence of personal bias or conflicts of interest during the evaluation process.

2. Submission and Initial Evaluation

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial evaluation, which includes the following:

  • Preliminary Screening: The editorial team assesses the manuscript for alignment with the journal’s scope, originality, and basic formatting.
  • Suitability Check: The editor determines if the manuscript fits the topic, quality, and focus of the journal. If the manuscript does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected without further review.
  • Plagiarism Check: All manuscripts undergo a plagiarism check using plagiarism detection software to ensure originality and academic integrity.

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is then sent to at least two independent expert reviewers who are specialists in the manuscript's subject area.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are critical to maintaining the quality and standards of the journal. The following responsibilities are expected from all peer reviewers:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its content as confidential and not share or use it for personal gain.
  • Objectivity: Reviews should be based on academic merit, the quality of the research, and relevance to the field, free from personal bias.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their reviews within the given timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks) or notify the editor if they are unable to do so.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, constructive feedback, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript to guide the author in improving the work.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from reviewing if they have any relationships with the authors or manuscript content that could affect their impartiality.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The editorial board maintains a pool of qualified experts who are invited to review manuscripts based on their experience and research background.

  • Expertise: Reviewers should have a strong academic and research background in the field of the manuscript.
  • Independence: Reviewers should not have any personal or professional relationship with the authors that could compromise the review process.

5. Decision-Making Process

After receiving the feedback from the reviewers, the editorial team makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small revisions, such as clarifying certain points or correcting errors.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes or additional experiments before it can be considered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript is rejected if it does not meet the journal's standards or is deemed unsuitable for publication.

The editor will send the decision along with reviewer comments to the corresponding author, who will be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

6. Ethical Guidelines

The peer review process adheres to ethical guidelines to ensure transparency, fairness, and academic integrity.

  • Impartial Evaluation: Manuscripts are evaluated purely on their academic merits and relevance to the field, without discrimination based on the author’s background, gender, nationality, or affiliation.
  • Transparency: Authors will be provided with detailed feedback from reviewers to understand the rationale behind the editorial decision.
  • Handling of Conflicts: Any potential conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, or editors will be disclosed and managed according to the journal’s ethical standards.

7. Appeal Process

If an author disagrees with the editorial decision, they have the right to appeal. The appeal process is as follows:

  • Written Appeal: The author must submit a formal appeal to the editorial board within 14 days of receiving the decision, outlining the reasons for the disagreement.
  • Re-Evaluation: The editorial board will review the appeal and may seek additional reviews or reconsideration of the manuscript based on the appeal’s grounds.
  • Final Decision: The decision made by the editorial board after the appeal process will be final.

8. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers are an essential part of the journal’s quality control. To recognize their contributions:

  • Acknowledgment: Reviewers are acknowledged in the journal’s yearly review board list.
  • Certificates: Upon request, reviewers may be issued a certificate of recognition for their efforts.