All papers submitted to the Journal undergo the following steps:
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript submitted to the journal is initially examined by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the aims and scope of the journal and meets the basic requirements of scholarly publication.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic academic or formatting requirements may be returned to the author before peer review.
2. Originality and Plagiarism Check
Submitted manuscripts are examined for originality and possible plagiarism or inappropriate duplication of previously published material. Where significant plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct are identified, appropriate editorial action will be taken in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.
3. Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for review are sent to qualified reviewers with relevant academic expertise.
Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
Where applicable, reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently on the basis of:
- Originality and relevance of the research
- Clarity of research objectives
- Methodological soundness
- Quality of analysis and interpretation
- Use of relevant scholarly sources
- Structure and presentation
- Accuracy of references and citations
- Contribution to the relevant field
4. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend:
- Accept
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Revise and Resubmit
- Reject
The final editorial decision is made by the journal’s editorial team after considering the reviewers’ comments and the overall academic quality of the manuscript.
5. Revision
When revisions are required, authors are expected to respond carefully to the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial office. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, where appropriate.
6. Final Decision
Acceptance of a manuscript is based on its academic quality, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and satisfactory completion of the review and revision process.
7. Confidentiality
Editors and reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and should not use unpublished information for personal or professional purposes.
8. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer may be replaced where a significant conflict of interest is identified.
Review Timeline
The duration of the editorial and peer-review process may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and the revisions required. The journal strives to ensure a timely, fair, and thorough review process for all submissions.
Reviewer Guidelines
Review Timeline
The duration of the editorial and peer-review process may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and the revisions required. The journal strives to ensure a timely, fair, and thorough review process for all submissions.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of Faizan-e-Adab. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and constructively.
Reviewers should consider:
- The originality and significance of the research.
- The relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal.
- The clarity of the research question or objectives.
- The adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology.
- The quality of analysis and interpretation.
- The use and relevance of scholarly references.
- The logical organization and clarity of the manuscript.
- The accuracy and consistency of citations and references.
- The overall contribution of the manuscript to the relevant field.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, or discuss unpublished manuscripts with others without authorization from the editorial office.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline an assignment if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality.
Academic Integrity
Reviewers should inform the editorial office if they identify substantial similarity, suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated information, or other serious ethical concerns.
Review Reports
Review reports should be objective, respectful, specific, and supported by academic reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate. Reviewers should clearly distinguish between major and minor revisions and provide constructive recommendations that can help improve the manuscript.
Recommendation
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers may recommend:
- Accept
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Revise and Resubmit
- Reject
The final editorial decision rests with the journal’s editorial team.
Invites academicians and professionals to contribute articles, research papers, case studies, abstract of doctoral dissertations and book reviews.