Peer Review Policy

Journal of Digital Islamicate and Humanities (DIH) · J. Digit. Islamicate Humanit. · Online ISSN 3124-9523 · Published by Zahira Studies · Two issues per year (April and October)

1. Purpose

DIH is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal on the integration of digital technologies and computational methods in Islamicate studies. Peer review ensures that published work is original, methodologically sound, scholarly accurate, and ethically responsible, both as digital scholarship and as scholarship on Islamicate societies, cultures, texts, and intellectual traditions. This policy explains how manuscripts are evaluated, what is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors, and how decisions are made.

2. Type of Peer Review

DIH uses a double-blind peer review process. Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in digital humanities methodologies and in the relevant field of Islamicate studies. The identities of authors are withheld from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are withheld from authors, throughout the review process. Authors must therefore prepare their manuscripts without names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or other self-identifying references in the main text and file properties, including links to repositories, project websites, or datasets that reveal the authors' identity. Author details are provided separately during submission.

3. Scope of Review

All original research articles, review articles, and digital project reports submitted to the journal are subject to peer review. Editorials, announcements, and other editorial notes may be published at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief without external review.

4. The Review Process

4.1 Initial Screening (Editorial Check)

Every submission is first assessed by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor for:

  • fit with the journal's aims and scope in digital Islamicate and humanities research;
  • compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template;
  • completeness of the submission (abstract, references, and data, code, or project statements where applicable);
  • basic scholarly and language quality; and
  • originality, using similarity-detection software such as Turnitin or iThenticate.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, of insufficient quality, or show unacceptable levels of text overlap may be rejected at this stage without external review, or returned to the authors for correction before review begins.

4.2 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a handling editor, who invites at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected for their command of digital humanities methods and of the subject matter, for example Qur'anic and Hadith studies, Islamic law, manuscript studies, Arabic language, history, arts, or Muslim societies, and for the absence of conflicts of interest. A third reviewer may be invited when a manuscript spans disciplines or when reviewers' assessments diverge significantly.

4.3 Evaluation by Reviewers

Reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance: Does the work make a meaningful contribution to digital Islamicate and humanities scholarship?
  • Methodological soundness: Are the computational and humanistic methods (for example NLP, stylometry, network analysis, GIS, 3D modeling) appropriate, correctly applied, and justified for the research question?
  • Sources and data: Are the primary sources, corpora, manuscripts, or datasets identified, reliable, and properly cited, with attention to provenance, editions, and rights to use?
  • Scholarly accuracy: Are the treatment of Islamicate texts, concepts, terminology, translation, and transliteration accurate and respectful of the traditions studied?
  • Reproducibility and documentation: Are the data, code, models, annotation schemes, and parameters described well enough for others to evaluate or reuse the work?
  • Digital project quality: For project reports, are the design, interoperability, documentation, and long-term sustainability of the resource adequately addressed?
  • Critical and ethical engagement: Does the work consider bias in tools and models, the ethics of digitizing heritage, and the privacy and dignity of the people involved?
  • Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly organized and well written, and are conclusions supported by the evidence?

Reviewers submit a written report with comments for the authors and a recommendation to the editor.

4.4 Review Timeline

Reviewers are asked to return their reports within two to three weeks of accepting an invitation. The journal aims to give authors a first decision within four to eight weeks of submission. Actual timing may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript, and the editorial office works to keep manuscripts on schedule for the April and October issues.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and their own assessment, the handling editor recommends, and the Editor-in-Chief makes, one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with only minor editorial changes.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable pending small changes. Revised versions are typically checked by the editor.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in DIH.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over publication decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the work and its relevance to the journal, and are never influenced by the authors' nationality, gender, religious affiliation, institution, seniority, or other personal characteristics.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

Authors who receive a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, clearly indicating the changes made or explaining why a suggestion was not adopted. Revisions are expected within the period stated in the decision letter (normally two to four weeks); extensions may be requested from the editorial office. A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision before a final decision is reached.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural unfairness may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, with a detailed justification and responses to the reviewers' points. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an editor or reviewer not previously involved. The outcome of the appeal is final. Complaints about the review process may be sent to the editorial office through the Contact page.

8. Responsibilities

8.1 Reviewers

  • Treat the manuscript and all related material as strictly confidential, and do not share, copy, or use its content for personal advantage.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback, avoiding personal criticism of the authors and judging the work on its scholarly merit rather than on religious, theological, or methodological preference.
  • Decline the invitation promptly if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or have a conflict of interest.
  • Alert the editor if they identify the authors or suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other ethical concerns.
  • Not use generative AI tools to evaluate or write reviews in a way that exposes confidential manuscript content. Any limited use of AI for language editing of the review must not involve uploading the manuscript.

8.2 Authors

  • Submit original work that is not under consideration elsewhere and has not been published previously.
  • Anonymize the manuscript in line with the double-blind process.
  • Document the sources, datasets, tools, and models used, and respect the copyright, licensing terms, and access conditions of digitized materials and manuscripts.
  • Make data, code, or project materials available for review where possible, in a way that preserves anonymity during review.
  • Obtain informed consent and ethical clearance where research involves human participants, for example in digital ethnography or studies of online communities.
  • Respond to reviewers' comments honestly, courteously, and on time.
  • Disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

8.3 Editors

  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly, impartially, and on intellectual merit only.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of submissions and of the identities of authors and reviewers during review.
  • Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest, including those authored by colleagues, family members, or members of the same institution. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor, with the author excluded from all decision-making.
  • Ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and communicated clearly.

9. Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the review process must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could reasonably be seen as influencing their judgement. Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors, have co-authored with them in recent years, or have a direct competing interest. Authors may suggest or exclude potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to follow these suggestions.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed with anyone outside the review process, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer reports and correspondence are kept confidential, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

11. Research and Publication Ethics

DIH follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, redundant publication, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, is handled according to the journal's publication ethics policy. Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction or retraction, and notify the authors' institution.

12. Contact

Questions about this policy or the status of a submission can be directed to the editorial office through the journal's Contact page.