Peer Review Policy

Al-Amin is a Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Research Journal.

Internal Review:

Each paper undergoes an internal review by a dedicated editorial board or team member to ensure compliance with formatting guidelines and publication ethics. This process includes verifying adherence to basic research protocols in research design and analysis, as well as assessing the contribution to the existing literature. At Al-Amin, a rigorous desk review process is employed, wherein articles must pass a desk rejection or acceptance system before being sent for external review. Papers that do not meet the essential criteria are not forwarded for external evaluation, ensuring a high standard of quality in published work

External Review:

Following approval during the desk review stage, the article is forwarded to two esteemed external reviewers of international renown. Authors are instructed not to include personal information within the text to maintain anonymity, and they are advised against posting their papers online to prevent identification by potential reviewers. Similarly, reviewers are urged to refrain from accepting assignments if they become aware of the authors' identities during the peer review process. External reviewers provide valuable feedback on various aspects, including originality, presentation quality, research design, data analysis, conclusions, and the study's relevance to the research community. If significant flaws are identified during external review that cannot be remedied through revision, reviewers may recommend declining the paper.


Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are meticulously chosen based on stringent criteria:

  • Reviewers must possess a Ph.D. or advanced professional qualifications coupled with extensive academic or professional experience relevant to the field of study.
  • They are recognized as esteemed experts in their respective fields, evidenced by their publications in reputable academic or professional research journals. Their expertise ensures thorough and insightful evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
  • Reviewers must not have collaborated or co-authored papers with the author(s) to maintain objectivity and impartiality. Additionally, they should not be affiliated with the institution of the author(s) to avoid potential conflicts of interest.


Publication Ethics (for reviewers)

Reviewers are strongly encouraged to adhere to the guidelines outlined by the HEC (Higher Education Commission) regarding their responsibilities. These guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining objectivity, timeliness, and confidentiality in their reviews. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to provide thorough and constructive feedback while upholding the principles of confidentiality. Furthermore, they are urged to report any concerns or issues promptly and transparently. By following these guidelines, reviewers contribute to ensuring the integrity and credibility of the peer review process.

Steps in Peer Review Process

The peer review process entails the following steps:


Sr. No   Steps of the Review                                                        Process Estimated Time

1     Submission of paper                                                                       --

2     First internal review *                                                         3-4Weeks

3     External review                                                                      4-5 weeks

4Communicationof review reports to authors for minor/major revision **          1 Week

5   Submission of the revised paper                       4-8 Weeks

6   Second internal review (to assess whether reviewers’ suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily) ***                                                                                      2-4 weeks

7    Acceptance of paper (on successful submission of revised paper)1 Week


*The paper is sent back to the authors if it fails to meet the essential criteria.

** If external reviewers identify significant flaws in the research paper that cannot be addressed through substantial revisions, paper is returned to the authors.

*** Authors are asked to revise the manuscript further if editors find that reviewers' recommendations have not been adequately incorporated.