Review Policy
All submitted manuscripts are reviewed through 'double-blind' peer review process that means the identities of the authors are kept confidential from the reviewers, and vice versa. To make this possible, anonymized version of the manuscript are sent to referees.
Desk Review
Submitted papers are first considered by the editor after submission. Papers that do not fall within the scope of the journal are 'desk-rejected'. In addition, papers that fail to meet a minimum threshold for quality and originality are also rejected without being sent out to the reviewers.
The standard procedure of an initial editorial review by the internal editorial committee consists of the content, scope, formatting, citations according to recommended Style, i.e., Chicago Manual of Style, and is usually completed in three to four weeks.
Peer Review Policy
Papers passing through this initial editorial scrutiny are then typically sent out to minimum two referees (one national and one international). ". If one or more of these turn down the invitation to provide a review, other referees will subsequently be appointed. The authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required. All publication decisions are made by the journal’s Chief Editor on the basis of the referees’ reports (reviewers report).
Please bear in mind that the peer review process takes another two- three month. Therefore, the contributors are expected to bear with us as we complete the process to ensure, that the Al-Misbah adheres to the highest quality standards.
In case if a manuscript is found to be plagiarized (see plagiarism policy) after publication, the Chief Editor will conduct a preliminary investigation, maybe with the help of a suitable committee constituted for the purpose. If the manuscript is found to be plagiarized beyond the acceptable limits, the journal will contact the author’s Institute / College / University and Funding Agency, if any.
We are advising all the author(s), do not submit the same paper to multiple journals. Author(s) should wait for the review status of the paper.
The editor takes reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness.
Minor misconduct might be dealt with/without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author is given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
Serious misconduct might require application of one or more of the following measures:
- Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
- Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
- A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
- Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department
- Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
