AL-ILM Policy Document

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3MI2E07jZIuIHQ8iY4dQcOnWoYHImWS/view?usp=sharing

                                  Policy Document of “AL-ILM” Research Journal

Research Journal “AL-ILM” is being published by the Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies, Govt. College Women University, Sialkot, since 2017. It is an open access, bi-Annual, peer reviewed, trilingual (Arabic, Urdu, And English) research journal which publishes research articles and book reviews electronically as well as in printed form. The Journal welcomes the scholarly contributions related to core subject i.e. Islamic Studies and covers various dimensions of Islamic thoughts and civilization. The policy document of AL-ILM covers the following aspects:

  1. Frequency of Journal:

Research Journal “AL-ILM” is being published by the Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies, Govt. College Women University, Sialkot, since 2017. It is an open access, bi-Annual, peer reviewed, trilingual (Arabic, Urdu, And English) research journal which publishes research articles and book reviews electronically as well as in printed form.

  1. Guidelines of Submission of Research Articles:

AL-ILM is published through an open access journal system (OJS) which allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of its articles and to use them for any other legal purpose. All current/previous issues and complete articles can be viewed or downloaded from AL-ILM’s Website.

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines

“AL-ILM” is a multilingual (Arabic, Urdu, English) Bi-Annual Research Journal of the Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies, Govt. College Women University, Sialkot. The Journal publishes creative and innovative research articles on any aspect related to Islamic Studies. However, the manuscripts related to contemporary issues of the Muslim world will be highly appreciated.

Manuscript Submission

The manuscripts must be uploaded by Register/Log in to OJS website of the Journal. To facilitate academic review and production, authors must provide complete Information (name, address, phone number(s), current position/title, and name(s) of universities) of themselves and their co-authors on OJS submission menu. Incomplete submitted articles will not be considered. Moreover, manuscripts will be considered for publication only if they have not been published previously and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

The Review Procedure

            Manuscripts that are submitted to “AL-ILM’’ are subject to evaluation by at least two independent referees who are expert in the applicable field. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests solely with “AL-ILM’’ Editorial Board. This decision is final. The Editorial Board will, however, base its decision primarily upon the recommendations of the referees who have evaluated the papers.

Format Requirements

  • General Requirements:

Unsolicited Manuscripts must be written in English/Urdu/Arabic. Type the manuscript on white bond paper, 8-1/2×11 inches (21.6×27 cm or A4 size paper) with margins of at least 1.5 inches (4cm). Type on one side of the paper only double spacing every page. Begin each of the following section on separate page and in the following order: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion, and References. Number the pages of the research paper consecutively, beginning from the title page. Type the page number in the upper right-hand corner of each page in English, and in the upper left-hand corner of each page in Urdu and Arabic.

Articles must be submitted in MS Word, For Urdu Article Jameel Noori Nasta’leeq, For Arabic Sakkal Majalla Font Size 14 , for headings font size should be 16 (bold) and for English in Times New Roman, Font Size 12and for English headings font size should be 16 (bold). The numbers of the pages must be between 10 to 15.

  • Abstracts:

Provide an abstract the paper on a separate page which must not consist more than 150 words. This abstract should consist of labeled background, Methods, Results and Conclusion, briefly describing respectively, the problem, mode of its study, results, conclusion and suggestions.

  • Key Words:

Include the Key Words relating to the article subject

  • Introduction:

State the primary information of the topic and rationalize its study.

  • Literature Review:

State the research work related to your topic, done before in a comprehensive manner

  • Discussion:

Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and describe its conclusions. Link the conclusions with the goals of the study and avoid the conclusions not completely supported with valid references.

  • Results & Recommendations

Provide the results of study and recommendations in logical sequence in the text.

  • References:
  1. The Article should meet the research standards.
  2. References should be in the form of end notes.
  3. References of Urdu and Arabic books should be written in Roman English using transliteration keys in addition to Urdu or Arabic.
  4. Text and references must follow the format outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style 16th Edition.
  5. References should be at the end of the article (Endnote)
  6. All notes citing books must contain the complete title, name of the author(s), place of publication, publishing company, and date.
  7. All foreign words must be underlined and transliterated. The editorial team of Al-Ilm reserves the right to change the transliteration of all historical names, titles, and non-English terminology to bring conformity with its own style.
  8. Editor Board of “AL-ILM” reserves the right to decline any manuscript without expressing any reason. Non-compliance to guidelines of “AL-ILM” will lead towards non-publishing of the article.
  9. For Book review three sets of books must be sent to Editor AL-ILM on the address provided below.
  10. Any Positive feedback is cordially welcomed at the address provided below:

 For Correspondence:

Editor “AL- ILM”  Dr Sayeda Sadia
Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies, Govt. College Women University,
editor.alilm@gcwus.edu.pk
Publisher: Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies, Govt. College Women University, Sialkot. Pakistan.

  1. Article Processing Charges (APC)

The authors have to pay Processing/Publishing Charges: (PKR=20,000 Non Refundable) after successful peer-review of the article.

Bank Account Details:

The details of the account are as follows.

Bank Name:   The Bank of Punjab

Account Title: AL-ILM

Account #:      6580208768600052

IBAN:              PK70BPUN6580208768600052

Branch code: 003 (Paris Road, Sialkot-Pakistan)

  1. Peer Review Policy:

This journal employs a double blind review process, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process. The manuscript/paper is sent to two reviewers (paper without the name and affiliations of the author(s). The review process takes maximum two months.

How long does the review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within six weeks. If the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unreasonably delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.

Editor's decision

Referees advise the editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

 

  1. Originality and Plagiarism Policy:

Resesarch Journal AL-ILM strictly follows Plagiarism Policy as per guidelines of HEC (Pakistan). The Similarity Report on Turnitin should be below 19 percent

  1. Subscription Details:

AL-ILM research journal provides subscribers access to research articles on various disciplines of Islamic studies. Subscription includes online access to current Issue and archived issues and upcoming articles. The Subscription to the AL-ILM Research Journal is free of cost.

  1. Ethical Guidelines:

NOTE: These guidelines are retrieved from Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan manual for “Ethical Guidelines for Journals”, which has been prepared by Prof. Dr. Rukhsana Kausar, Vice Chancellor, Government College Women University, Sialkot.

  1. For Authors:

The following ethical guidelines are mandatory for all author(s). Violation of these guidelines may result in the application of penalties by the competent authorities, which will be lead to the suspension or cancellation of publishing rights.

Reporting Standards

  • Will ensure that the research report and data contains satisfactory detail and references.
  • False, knowingly inaccurate, or inappropriate statements are unethical and unacceptable in any way/case.

Originality of Research and Plagiarism

  • If Plagiarism is found in any of its forms, it sets up unethical publishing manners and leads to the rejection of research.
  • Material quoted in the same must be placed in quotation marks.
  • The similarity index shouldn’t be more than 20%, As per HEC’s policy.

Declaration & Certificate

  • A declaration certificate will be required that the Article/Research Paper/ manuscript contains only author(s) original work that is not under consideration for publishing in any other journal/proceedings in any form.
  • The co-authored paper must be accompanied by an undertaking in order to claim the right to authorship and to ensure that all have agreed to the sequence/order of authorship.

Submission to Other Journals for Publication 

  • Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and leads to rejection at once.         

Acknowledgment of Sources in Research

  • A paper must contain a proper acknowledgment of the work of others.
  • The author(s) must also acknowledge the contributions of people, organizations, and institutes who assisted the process of research or financial funding (in the acknowledgment).
  • It is the duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and cite the original publications.

Research Work Authorship Credit

  • Authorship of the work will be only credited to those who have made a significant contribution in the presentation of the concept, data analysis, and writing up of the manuscript.
  • The corresponding author(s) should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Privacy of Participants/Author(S)

  • Authors must respect the privacy of the participant(s) of the research.
  • Authors must ensure that in examples where the identity of the participant needs to be revealed in the study, obvious and informed consent of the concerned party is obtained.

Research Data Access and Preservation

  • If any question arises about the accuracy or validity of the research work during the review process the author(s) should provide raw data to the Editor.

Already Disclosure and Conflicts Of Interest

  • The potential conflicts of interest of all author(s) must be conveyed to the editor at the earliest possible stage, including but not limited to employment, consultancies, honoraria, etc.
  • If necessary for Research, all sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed at the earliest.     

Conditions of Manuscript’s Acceptance and Rejection

  • 60 days after submission of the Paper and receiving an acknowledgment letter, the author can ask about the status of his article.
  • In case of any recommended and suggested revision, the author(s) will be demanded to revise his research accordingly in the time given by the Editor. Later on, he must provide a description of all corrections made in the manuscript and the revised copy.
  • If the author does not satisfy with the decision of rejection, the author can appeal the decision by contacting the Editor.
  1. For Reviewers:

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. Review of the manuscript by reviewers is not only an essential component of formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the publication process as it aids Editor in the editorial decision making. It also allows author(s) improve their manuscript through editorial communications. Scholars accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process. The peer review process depends on the trust, and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training. As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their ethical obligations. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan wants to list down 'Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers' so that all reviewers provide their valuable services in a standardized manner.

 

Initial Steps

Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?).

Confidentiality

  • Reviewers should consider the research paper as a confidential document and must not discuss its content on any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the Editor, and
  • Reviewers are professionally and ethically bound not to disclose the details of any research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the Editor.

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others . Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal . The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Favoritism and Competing Interests

It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice . While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process. In the case of double-blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.

Suspicion of Ethics Violations: Considerations

  • If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a reference.
  • If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,
  • If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and

If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized for e.g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others' work appropriately, then this should

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

Transferability of Peer Review 

Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

Suitability and Rapidity

The Reviewers should:

  • Inform the Editor, if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review and s/he should inform the Editor immediately after receiving a request.
  • Be responsible to act promptly and submit review report on time.
  • Immediately inform the Editor of any possible delays and suggest another date of submission for a review report, and
  • Not unnecessarily delay the review process, either by prolonged delay in submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional data/information from the Editor or author(s).

Standards of Objectivity

  • The reviews should be objectively carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards.
  • All judgments should be meticulously established and maintained in order to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).
  • Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
  • The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and
  • The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.

Disclosure and Conflict Of Interest

  • A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the Editor.
  • The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,
  • A reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In such situation, s/he will be required to follow the journal's policies.
  • A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted study.
  • If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.

 

 

Content Quality and Originality

  • Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
  • Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?
  • Is the research question an important one?
  • In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?
  • Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?

You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor. As for as evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:

■ Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?

■ Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?

Organization and Clarity

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

 Preparing a Report

Format 

Follow journal’s instructions for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied by the journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

Appropriate Feedback 

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal may also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

Language and Style

Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.

Suggestions for Further Work 

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Accountability

Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

 

  1. For Editors:

Being an editor, he/she should carry out their responsibilities with much dedication to improve the quality of the journal. It is advisable to oversee the journal policies time to time and assisting the publisher in maintaining the journal’s quality towards serving the scientific community. The Editor of a research journal plays an important role in establishing and maintaining the professional standards. Publication of a paper in an HEC recognized journal is expected to be a reflection of quality work of the author (s) and the affiliating institution (if any). The Editor is expected to perform the responsibility towards the journal on its all aspects and at varied stages i.e. from receiving of an article to publishing it. Keeping this in view, it becomes prime responsibility of an editor to adapt the following guidelines while publishing papers in his/her research journal.

 Guidelines for Best Editor’s Characteristics

Shortly, these Characteristics should be in an Editor:

  • To improve the ways of journal processes, the editor should actively seek the views of editorial board members, reviewers, authors
  • Encourage research into peer review, technological advances and reassess journal processes in the light of new discoveries
  • He welcomes their editor's suggestions in providing appropriate resources, guidance from experts and training to perform the publisher's role in a professional manner and improve the quality of the journal
  • Encourage initiatives designed to prevent research misconduct and educate researchers about publication ethics
  • Encourages submission of quality articles to the journal by personally recruiting authors, assisting them with outreach, and ensuring the marketing plan is executed
  • Ensures feedback provided to authors is constructive, fair, and timely
  • Should determine whether a submitted manuscript is appropriate for the journal
  • Article submitted for peer review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author's identity and work
  • Recruit high profile reviewers using multiple sources, e.g., personal recommendations, Web databases, published choice review
  • Should monitor the process of peer review and take steps to ensure this is of high standard
  • Communicate with reviewers as regularly as possible, according to their availability and give them clear instructions in maintaining quality of the journal
  • Avoid conflicts of interest when making assignments. Check whether reviewer has history of conflict with author
  • Should encourage reviewers to comment on- ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
  • The originality of article submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • Ensure to rewrite content when required.( Typographical errors, incorrect line or page breaks, Spelling errors, Errors in grammar and syntax, Errors in word usage, graphs, the styling of tables, and other art, including their labels, captions, and text mentions, Ambiguous vocabulary and syntax)
  • Should communicate directly with the author and the review team
  • Recommend acceptance or rejection of the articles considered for publication to the journal Editor
  • Should be able to resolve any conflicts

The Editor’s Responsibilities

 The Editor of a research journal should be responsible for:

  • Establishing and maintaining quality of the journal by publishing quality papers in his/her journal.
  • Promotion of freedom of expression within the cultural, constitutional/legal framework,
  • Providing integrity and credibility of the research contributions,
  • Meeting the needs of authors and readers,
  • Maintaining ethical standards of their journal,
  • Providing corrigendum for any correction, clarification and apologies where required.
  • Encourage new ideas and suggestions of authors, peer reviewers, members of editorial board and readers for improving quality of his/her journal,
  • Apply the process of blind peer review in true letter and spirit,
  • Promote innovative findings in respective field and publishing them on priority,
  • Promote anti plagiarism policy,
  • Educate contributors (authors) about ethical practices in research, and
  • Implement the journal’s policy without institutional pressure and revise the policy from time to time.

Formation of Editorial Board

  • The Editor must ensure that the Editorial Board comprises prominent scholars of the field who can adequately promote the journal,
  • The Editorial Board should comprise of and be responsible for the following:
  • An Editorial Committee, who will be responsible for providing logistics, and
  • Advisory Committee, who will be responsible for reviewing the submitted research articles, this committee should have at least 50% representation of scholars from abroad.
  • May appoint Editorial Board members for a prescribed duration and add or revise constitution of the Board if required,
  • The Editor should inform new board members about ethical guidelines and their expected role and update the Editorial Board members about development, challenges and any changes made in the journal policy,
  • The Editorial Board should maintain quality of the journal because an assigned category by the HEC (e.g. W, X, Y, and Z categories) will depend on the quality of published papers in it. It is the professional duty of the Board members to select credible research work, and
  • To ensure smooth functioning of the journal, the Editors are responsible for conducting the Editorial Board meetings on regular basis (at least twice a year).

Fair Play and Impartiality

  • The criteria for the selection of research papers must be impartial and the Editor should select academically and scientifically sound articles,
  • The Editor should:
  • Promptly respond to the author (s) of the papers submitted for publication, and
  • Assign a specific number to an article submitted for processing; and pay impartial consideration to all research papers submitted for publication.
  • To ensure evaluation of the content of research papers impartially,
  • Disregard the discriminating factors, e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, cultural sentiments, political affiliation, seniority and/or institutional association of the author(s) while selecting articles for publication,
  • To ensure impartiality of the review process by informing the reviewer (s) that s/he needs to disclose any conflicts of interest regarding the submitted research paper.

Confidentiality

  • The Editor must ensure confidentiality of the author(s) and reviewers during the process of double-blind peer review,
  • Information pertaining to a research paper should not be disclosed by the Editor to anyone except the author(s), reviewer(s), and editorial board members,
  • Upon reaching a decision about a research paper, only the Editor may disclose or announce title of the study and name of the author(s) that has been accepted for publication. Any other information may only be disclosed with the prior approval of the author(s), and
  • Confidentiality of the participants of the research should also be ensured by protecting personal information (e.g. identifiable personal details, images, and/or individual results). Editor should declare clear guidelines to the contributors (authors) regarding confidentiality of the individual participant.
  • Prior to publication, the content of the manuscript should be kept confidential, both the Editor and reviewer(s) will not share or use any part of the work.

Editing and Formatting Guidelines

  • The Editor should prepare clear guidelines about preparing and formatting of a paper and print these guidelines in each issue of the journal,
  • The guidelines should cover information related to 'content' and 'format' of a research paper,
  • Any preferred manual of style (e.g. APA, Chicago Manual, MLA Style, etc) should be declared as a policy decision.

 

The Review Process

  • Details about the review process should be declared,
  • Editor should ensure that all published papers have gone through a double-blind peer review, and at least one of the reviewers is from outside the country.
  • The Editor should ensure that peer-review is masked in both directions and as such the identity of the author is removed from the manuscript prior to its review in order to protect the confidentiality and privacy.
  • The Editor should provide sufficient guidelines to reviewers, including necessary information about the review process and provide them a reviewer comment form for recording his/her comments.
  • The Editor must ensure that peer review process is prompt, nondiscriminatory and highly professional.
  • The Editor should develop a system of confidentiality of research papers undergoing the review process.
  • The Editor is required to send reviewers' comments to author(s) promptly and should ensure that the corrections suggested by the reviewers are incorporated by the author(s) in true letter and spirit.
  • The Editor to critically evaluate peer review practices regularly and make improvements, if, require.
  • The Editor should maintain a database of competent and qualified reviewers. For this purpose, s/he may use various sources other than personal contacts to identify new reviewers (e.g. referring by author (s), citations and references section in a book/journal), and
  • The Editor should refer troublesome cases (e.g. in case of one acceptance and one rejection or any conflict arisen after review) to Advisory Committee in order to resolve the matter amicably.

Dealing with Misconduct

  • The Editor should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues and possible research and publication misconduct (e.g. inappropriate research design, incomplete detail on participant's consent, data manipulation, and presentation).
  • The Editor should encourage reviewers to comment on the validity of submitted research paper and identify 'subtle (simply copy-paste)' and/or 'blatant (paraphrasing)' type of plagiarism, if, practiced by the author(s).
  • The Editor should confirm plagiarism (carry out objective check through Turnitin) and/or searching for similar titles to the submitted research paper, and
  • The Editor should be prepared to publish a corrigendum, remove and retract a plagiarized article if it comes to his/her knowledge subsequent to its publication.

Transparency

  • The Editor must ensure that multiple papers as a principal investigator submitted by an author should not be published in the same issue.
  • Only ONE co-authorship is allowed for those authors who also contribute a research paper as a principal investigator in the same issue.
  • For the members of the Editorial Board (including the Editor), it will only be limited to ONE paper per issue either to submit research paper as a principal investigator or co- author, and
  • The Editor should adopt authorship or co-authorship policy that will set an example in the scientific community and strictly discourage any misconduct (e.g. forcible inclusion of a name in the author list). Authorship should only be given to those individuals who have substantially contributed in the said article.

 

Conflict of Interest

  • The Editor should not edit a submitted paper for those author(s) and/or institution against which s/he has any conflicts of interest (e.g. resulting from competitive, collaborative and/or professional standing).
  • The Editor should also apply this guideline on their reviewers and Editorial Board members.
  • To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member, and
  • The Editor must publish a list of common interests (e.g. financial, academic and/or any other type) for all Editorial Board members and editorial staff. This list should be updated from time to time.
  • To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member.
  • In case of article (s) submitted by the Editor, the decision pertaining to the editor's submitted article/s, one of the Associate Editors must take responsibility for the evaluation of the article and information pertaining to reviewers should be kept confidential. 

Disclosure

  • The Editor must not use any unpublished information/data from the submitted research paper without the permission of the author(s), and
  • Any information received after the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gains.

Publication Decisions

  • The Editor should only shortlist research papers which have relevance to the scope of the journal clearly stated in the Journal, using his /her judgment, but without any personal bias.
  • After completion of the reviewing process, the submission of revised manuscript, and assessing the quality and validity, the Editor has a right to accept or reject a research paper.
  • The Editor's decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based purely on merit, academic standards and professional demands of the journal.
  • The Editor must justify the reason (s) of rejecting a research paper to author(s). This may include:
  • Failure to fit in the scope of the journal (may be communicated after preliminary review)
  • Insufficient depth of content
  • Major errors related to design, analysis, write up and format
  • Any misconduct or conflicting factors (e.g. plagiarism, copyright infringement, legal issues, fake data, authorship issues)
  • The Editor is required to timely communicate the editorial decision to the author(s),
  • The Editors should not reverse decisions in favor or against author(s) on their own.

Establishing a Procedure for Appeal

  • The Editor is responsible for establishing a proper mechanism for appeals launched against:
  • The rejection of a research paper.
  • Objections to publications causing harm to any party.
  • Infringement of Ethical boundaries in any manner.

 

 

 

  1. Privacy Statement:

The authors retain copyright under the CC-BY license. However, author/authors have to sign a form agreeing to the publication of their article under the CC-BY license.

 

 

  1. Author Agreement Form:
 
   


The author has to provide following authorship, declaration and copyright certificate at the time of publishing of research article:

Sample of form

  1. Deadlines of all Processes:

The practice of peer review is applied to ensure that excellent research is published. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal of Writing Research and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

The journal follows a systematic review and publication policy.

Acknowledgement

The submitted manuscript is acknowledged within 07 working days upon receipt.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least two experts for review.

Type of Peer Review

This journal employs a double blind review process, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process. The manuscript/paper is sent to two reviewers (paper without the name and affiliations of the author(s). The review process takes maximum two months.

How long does the review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within six weeks. If the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unreasonably delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.

Editor's decision

Referees advise the editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article

  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
  • For Authors
  • The potential conflicts of interest of all author(s) must be conveyed to the editor at the earliest possible stage, including but not limited to employment, consultancies, honoraria, etc.
  • If necessary for Research, all sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed at the earliest.
  • For Reviewers:
  • A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the Editor.
  • The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,
  • A reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In such situation, s/he will be required to follow the journal's policies.
  • A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted study.
  • If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.
  • For Editors
  • The Editor must not use any unpublished information/data from the submitted research paper without the permission of the author(s), and
  • Any information received after the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gains
  • The Editor should not edit a submitted paper for those author(s) and/or institution against which s/he has any conflicts of interest (e.g. resulting from competitive, collaborative and/or professional standing).
  • The Editor should also apply this guideline on their reviewers and Editorial Board members.
  • To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member, and
  • The Editor must publish a list of common interests (e.g. financial, academic and/or any other type) for all Editorial Board members and editorial staff. This list should be updated from time to time.
  • To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member.
  • In case of article (s) submitted by the Editor, the decision pertaining to the editor's submitted article/s, one of the Associate Editors must take responsibility for the evaluation of the article and information pertaining to reviewers should be kept confidential. 
  1. Correction and Retraction of Research Articles:

Every article published by AL-ILM Research Journal either in the print issue of online, constitute the proper correction and retraction of Research Articles Procedure. The Process Includes:

  • The paper, revised and accepted following peer review, in its final form, including the abstract, text, references, bibliography, and all accompanying tables, illustrations, data.
  • Any supplemental material.

Recognizing a published article as a finalized Version establishes the expectation that it can be relied upon as accurate, complete, and citable. Wherever possible it is our policy to maintain the integrity of the research practices in accordance with the ethical guidelines issued by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to uploaded Version on the Journal Website. This will be done after careful consideration by the Editor to ensure any necessary changes are made. Any necessary changes will be accompanied with a post-publication notice which will be permanently linked to the original article so that readers will be fully informed of any necessary changes. This can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction and in rare circumstances a Removal. The purpose of this mechanism of making changes which are permanent and transparent is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

All correction, expressions of concern and retraction notices are free to access at the point of publication.

 

  • Correction

Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to putting forward any requests for corrections or retractions to an article. If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction or retraction is necessary for your article, contact the journal’s Editorial Team via Journal Website. A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission which can impact the interpretation of the article, but where the scholarly integrity of the article remains intact. Examples include mislabeling of a figure, missing key information on funding or competing interests of the authors.

  • Retractions

A Retraction notice will be issued where a major error (e.g. in the analysis or methods) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where research misconduct or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g. research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication etc). The decision to issue a retraction for an article will be made in accordance with ethical guidelines of Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and will involve an investigation by editorial team of AL-ILM Research Journal. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if their reasons meet the criteria for retraction. Retraction will be considered:

  • If there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication or image manipulation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • If the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (e.g. cases of redundant publication or duplicate publication).
  • If the research constitutes plagiarism.
  • Where there is evidence of fraudulent authorship.
  • Where there is evidence of compromised peer review.
  • If there is evidence of unethical research..
  • Expressions of concern

In some cases, an Expression of Concern notice may be considered where concerns of a major nature have been raised (e.g. serious research or publication misconduct), but where the outcome of the investigation is inconclusive or where due to various complexities the investigation will not be complete for a considerable time. When the investigation has been completed a Retraction or Correction notice may follow the Expression of Concern, and alongside the original article, all will remain part of the permanent published record.

Publication of an expression of concern notice will be considered if:

  • There is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, but the nature of the concerns warrant notifying the readers.
  • There are well-founded concerns that the findings are unreliable or that misconduct may have occurred, but there is limited cooperation from the authors’ institution(s) in investigating the concerns raised.
  • There is an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication that has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
  • An investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time and the nature of the concerns warrant notifying the readers.

The expression of concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.

  • Article removal

An article removal will be issued in rare circumstances where the problems are very serious in nature and cannot be addressed by a Retraction or Correction notice. AL-ILM Research Journal considers removal of a published article from journal website in circumstances such as:

  • If the article contains content that could pose a serious risk if followed or acted upon.
  • If the article contains content which violates the rights to privacy of a study participant.
  •  If the article is defamatory or infringes other legal rights.
  • If an article is subject to a court order.

In case of an article being removed from AL-ILM Research Journal Online, a removal notice will be issued in its place

  1. Contribution and Consents of Each Author:
  • A declaration certificate will be required that the Article/Research Paper/ manuscript contains only author(s) original work that is not under consideration for publishing in any other journal/proceedings in any form.
  • The co-authored paper must be accompanied by an undertaking in order to claim the right to authorship and to ensure that all have agreed to the sequence/order of authorship.
  • Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and leads to rejection at once. 
  • A paper must contain a proper acknowledgment of the work of others.
  • The author(s) must also acknowledge the contributions of people, organizations, and institutes who assisted the process of research or financial funding (in the acknowledgment).
  • It is the duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and cite the original publications.
  • Authorship of the work will be only credited to those who have made a significant contribution in the presentation of the concept, data analysis, and writing up of the manuscript.
  • The corresponding author(s) should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.