Peer Review

KITAB adopts a Single-Blind Peer Review process in which the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process, while reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors. Reviewers may, at their discretion, disclose their identities to authors after the review process has been completed.

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their suitability with the journal’s aims and scope, ethical standards, and submission requirements. Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary assessment will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The journal welcomes submissions from diverse disciplinary backgrounds and therefore seeks reviewers capable of evaluating manuscripts according to the standards and methodologies appropriate to the field of study. Reviewers are invited to provide constructive, objective, and scholarly feedback regarding the originality, significance, methodological rigour, theoretical contribution, use of sources, clarity of presentation, and overall academic quality of the manuscript.

For studies involving empirical research, reviewers may evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, data collection procedures, analysis, interpretation, and reproducibility where applicable. For textual, historical, philosophical, manuscript-based, and other humanities-oriented studies, reviewers may assess the use of primary and secondary sources, textual analysis, historical context, scholarly contribution, and methodological soundness.

For Scholarly Resource Articles, reviewers will evaluate the significance, authenticity, provenance, documentation, organisation, accessibility, and potential scholarly value of the resource being described. Emphasis will be placed on the quality, reliability, and future research utility of the resource rather than on interpretative or argumentative findings.

Reviewer reports and editorial comments will be communicated to authors to facilitate the improvement of submitted manuscripts. Authors are expected to respond clearly and comprehensively to all reviewer and editor comments within the specified revision period. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation where necessary.

The final decision to accept, reject, or request further revisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, taking into consideration the recommendations of the independent reviewers and the journal’s editorial standards.

Collaborative and multi-authored submissions are welcomed. Where necessary, the editorial office may request confirmation of authorship contributions and evidence that all listed authors have consented to the submission and publication of the manuscript.