Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer Review Policy

MAIRAJ is committed to maintaining a rigorous, impartial and transparent scholarly evaluation process. Every research manuscript considered for publication must undergo editorial assessment and independent peer review before acceptance.

The journal's review process is designed to evaluate originality, relevance, methodological rigor, analytical quality, ethical compliance and contribution to existing scholarship.

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office examines each manuscript for compliance with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, academic standards and ethical requirements.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, ethically problematic or academically unsuitable may be rejected at the initial screening stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

MAIRAJ follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and academic integrity in scholarly publishing.

All submitted research manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic quality, and compliance with submission guidelines.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Before manuscripts are forwarded for review, the authors' names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying information are removed to preserve anonymity.

Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts along with a structured Peer Review Form through official editorial correspondence. Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and completes the review form, including their name, institutional affiliation, email address, scholarly comments, and recommendations.

Completed review forms are returned confidentially to the editorial office. Reviewers' identities and personal information are not disclosed to the authors. When reviewer comments are communicated to authors, identifying information is removed.

Reviewers assess manuscripts on the basis of originality, methodological rigor, academic significance, clarity, relevance, research ethics, quality of analysis, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Following the receipt of independent reviewer reports, the editorial team evaluates the recommendations and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, reconsidered after substantial revision, or rejected.

Where reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may seek an additional independent assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions, which are based on scholarly merit, peer-review findings, ethical compliance, and the journal's editorial standards.

All peer-review reports, reviewer correspondence, and editorial decisions are maintained as confidential editorial records. MAIRAJ is committed to ensuring that its peer-review procedures remain transparent, independent, ethical, and consistent with recognized scholarly publishing standards.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise, professional independence and ability to provide objective scholarly evaluation.

The editorial team seeks appropriate expertise across Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, including specialists in Urdu and English literature for manuscripts submitted in those disciplines.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the originality and significance of the research, relevance to the journal's scope, adequacy of research methods, theoretical foundation, analytical quality, reliability of evidence, clarity of argument, accuracy of citations and compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must provide constructive, evidence-based and respectful evaluations. They must preserve manuscript confidentiality, disclose competing interests and avoid using unpublished research material for personal or professional advantage.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the handling editor may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection.

Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting assessments, the editor may request an additional independent review.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must address reviewer comments carefully and provide a response explaining the changes made. Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation when necessary.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, institutional, personal or political influence. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a relevant conflict of interest exists.

Editorial Board Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members must be handled by an independent editor and evaluated by reviewers without relevant conflicts of interest. Editorial affiliation must not provide preferential treatment.

Special Issues

Special-issue submissions are subject to the same quality standards, independent review procedures and editorial oversight as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for all published content.

Review Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications and unpublished research materials must be handled confidentially in accordance with the journal's declared review model.

Review Timelines

The journal aims to complete editorial and peer-review procedures within a reasonable period. Actual review duration may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and revision requirements. Authors should receive timely updates concerning significant delays.