- JOURNAL POLICIES
- Aims and Scope
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Ethics and Misconduct
- Allegations of Research Misconduct
- Retraction and Correction
- Withdrawal of Manuscript
- Plagiarism Policy
- Copyright and Licensing
- Publication Frequency
- Revenue Sources & APC
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving Policy
- Generative AI Policies
- Abstracting and Indexing
Reviewer Guidelines
AL-MAQĀṢID: The International Journal of Maqāṣid Studies and Advanced Islamic Research operates a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the quality, originality, and integrity of published work, and are asked to follow the guidelines below.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or cite an unpublished manuscript, or disclose its content to any third party, without the Editor's permission. Reviewer identity is not disclosed to authors, and authors' identifying information is withheld from reviewers as part of the double-blind process — do not attempt to identify the author(s) or contact them directly.
Conflicts of interest
Decline a review invitation if you have a conflict of interest, including but not limited to: a recent collaboration, supervisory relationship, or personal/professional relationship with any author; a competing interest in the manuscript's findings; or involvement in the funding of the research described.
Timeliness
Respond to a review invitation promptly, indicating whether you can accept. If you accept, reviews are expected within the timeframe communicated by the Editorial Office (see Peer Review Process for standard timelines). If you anticipate a delay, notify the Editorial Office as early as possible rather than submitting late without notice.
What to assess
- Originality and scope fit — does the manuscript fall within the journal's Aims and Scope, and does it offer a genuine contribution rather than duplicating existing published work?
- Rigor — are the methodology, argumentation, and use of sources sound? Are claims adequately supported?
- Structure and clarity — is the manuscript logically organized, with a clear abstract, objectives, and conclusions?
- Referencing — are sources cited appropriately and consistently, per the journal's Author Guidelines (APA 7th edition, with transliteration conventions applied to Arabic terms and titles)?
- Ethical compliance — flag any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest to the Editorial Office immediately, rather than attempting to resolve it within the review itself.
Providing your review
- Give constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments that will genuinely help the author improve the manuscript — avoid comments directed at the author personally rather than the work.
- Clearly distinguish major issues (that affect the manuscript's validity or fit for the journal) from minor issues(wording, formatting, small clarifications).
- Provide a clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject, consistent with the comments given.
- Confidential comments to the Editor (not shared with the author) may be used to raise concerns you feel are inappropriate to state directly to the author, such as suspected misconduct.
