Peer Review Policy

At Aafaq-e-Tahqeeq (AT), we are committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, transparency, fairness, and integrity in the publication process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure that published research meets scholarly and ethical standards.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Before entering the peer review process, all submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment by the editorial team. This assessment evaluates:

  • Relevance to the scope and aims of the journal.
  • Compliance with submission guidelines.
  • Academic quality and originality.
  • Ethical requirements and plagiarism concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal may be returned to authors before peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Aafaq-e-Tahqeeq (AT) follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in Urdu literature, linguistics, cultural studies, and related academic disciplines.

The double-blind review system ensures an unbiased evaluation process and minimizes potential conflicts or personal influence during manuscript assessment.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

  • Subject expertise and research experience.
  • Academic qualifications and publication record.
  • Knowledge relevant to the submitted manuscript.

The editorial team aims to select qualified and independent reviewers who can provide objective and constructive evaluations.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict exists, the reviewer will be replaced with another qualified reviewer.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to the field.
  • Academic significance and relevance.
  • Research methodology and scholarly approach.
  • Clarity, organization, and quality of writing.
  • Accuracy and suitability of references.
  • Ethical considerations and research integrity.
  • Overall contribution to knowledge development.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations to the editorial team, including:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without major changes.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Significant improvements are required before further consideration.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required academic or ethical standards.

Reviewer recommendations assist the editorial team in making informed publication decisions.

6. Author Revision Process

Authors receive reviewer comments and are expected to respond carefully to suggested revisions.

Authors should provide:

  • A revised manuscript addressing reviewer comments.
  • A clear response explaining changes made or reasons for disagreement.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewers provide recommendations; however, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts is made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial board.

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • Reviewer evaluations.
  • Academic quality of the manuscript.
  • Compliance with journal policies.
  • Ethical publishing standards.

Editors ensure that decisions are made fairly and without influence from personal, institutional, or financial interests.

8. Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Not share manuscript content with others without editorial permission.
  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and without personal bias.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Provide constructive and professional feedback.
  • Report suspected plagiarism or ethical concerns to the editorial team.

9. Transparency and Feedback

Aafaq-e-Tahqeeq (AT) provides authors with clear and constructive feedback regarding editorial decisions.

The journal ensures transparency by informing authors about:

  • Review outcomes.
  • Required revisions.
  • Reasons for rejection when applicable.

10. Handling Ethical Violations During Review

If ethical concerns are identified during the review process, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices, the manuscript will be investigated according to the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy.

Appropriate actions may include rejection, withdrawal, correction, or retraction of published articles.

11. Peer Review Integrity

The peer review process of Aafaq-e-Tahqeeq (AT) is conducted according to internationally recognized publishing ethics standards. The journal follows the principles recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure fairness, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the review process.