Peer Review and Editorial Policy

Peer Review and Editorial Policy

The Journal of Research in Humanities (JRH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity, academic quality, and ethical publishing. All submissions undergo a rigorous editorial screening and double-blind peer-review process to ensure that published research meets internationally recognized standards of originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution.

1. Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is subjected to an initial editorial assessment by the Managing Editor and members of the Editorial Board. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

• relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
• originality and scholarly significance;
• compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines;
• quality of academic writing and organization;
• adherence to publication ethics; and
• similarity screening requirements.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's basic editorial or ethical requirements may be returned to the author for technical revisions or declined before entering peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Every manuscript is screened using recognized plagiarism-detection software before it is sent for external review.

The journal follows the plagiarism policy prescribed by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan and internationally accepted standards of publication ethics. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated citations, or other forms of academic misconduct may be rejected without external review. Similarity reports may also be generated after revision, where deemed necessary by the Editorial Board.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The Journal of Research in Humanities follows a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Authors are required to remove all identifying information from the manuscript prior to review. Likewise, reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

 

4. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers possessing recognized expertise in the subject area of the submitted research.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• academic qualifications and research specialization;
• publication record and subject expertise;
• previous reviewing experience, where applicable;
• absence of conflicts of interest; and
• ability to provide objective, scholarly, and timely evaluations.

Members of the Editorial Board may recommend reviewers but do not review manuscripts in which they have any personal, professional, or institutional conflict of interest.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly;
• maintain strict confidentiality;
• identify methodological, conceptual, and theoretical strengths and weaknesses;
• assess originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, and engagement with existing literature;
• identify possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism or duplicate publication;
• provide constructive recommendations for improvement; and
• submit their reports within the stipulated review period.

6. Redundancy Control and Reviewer Independence

To preserve impartiality and diversity of scholarly opinion, the journal maintains reviewer records and seeks to avoid unnecessary reliance on the same reviewers for successive submissions or issues whenever reasonably possible.

Reviewers are selected independently for each manuscript, taking into account their disciplinary expertise, previous reviewing assignments, availability, and any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

No reviewer is assigned a manuscript where there exists a conflict that could compromise an independent and objective assessment.

7. Quality Assurance of Peer Review

The Editorial Board reviews every referee report to ensure that it is:

• scholarly and evidence-based;
• sufficiently detailed;
• constructive in nature;
• professionally written; and
• relevant to the manuscript under review.

Where reports are found to be inadequate, contradictory, or insufficiently substantiated, the Editor may seek clarification from the reviewer or commission an additional independent review before reaching a final editorial decision.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript and the quality of the reviewers' evaluations, rather than on any single review report.

8. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revisions;
• Accept subject to minor revisions;
• Invite major revisions and resubmission for further review;
• Reject.

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to decline manuscripts where reviewer recommendations have not been satisfactorily addressed.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and associated documents are treated as confidential throughout the editorial process.

Reviewers may not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.

10. Publication Ethics

The journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of publication ethics. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to conduct themselves with honesty, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and academic integrity throughout the publication process.

Any allegation of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, or other forms of publication misconduct will be investigated by the Editorial Board and dealt with in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

11. Continuous Improvement

The Editorial Board periodically reviews and updates its editorial and peer-review policies to reflect developments in international scholarly publishing, ethical standards, and the recommendations of relevant accreditation and indexing bodies.