Peer Review Process/ Policy

NUML JCI has a strict double blind peer review policy. We take advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff/committee. After the initial Desk Review by the editorial staff/committee, the individual manuscripts are sent for local and foreign reviews. The reviewers' suggestions, observations, and recommendations are accordingly conveyed to the author(s). For the sake of transparency, if the reviewers demand to read the revised manuscript, we resend the articles in the second round of reviews. If they recommend the article for publication with minor changes, our editorial staff ensures that all the changes are incorporated (along with any editorial suggestions) before the publication of an article. In order to ensure a smooth and transparent peer review process, the authors are required to closely follow the article submission process at https://jci.numl.edu.pk/index.php/jci/about/submissions 

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Initial Screening (Desk Review)

All submissions are first evaluated by the Editor/Managing Editor/ Assistant Editor to determine whether they align with the journal’s scope and basic quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are desk-rejected, usually within 30 working days.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism screening and AI Detection using standard detection software to ensure originality.

Assignment and Reviewer Selection

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to Reviewers. A minimum of two expert reviewers based on their academic expertise, research background, and familiarity with the topic.

Authors may suggest/ exclude potential reviewers; however, the final selection remains at the discretion of the Editorial Team. Suggested reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors.

Review Model

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure impartiality.

Review Timeline

• Reviewers are typically given 2 weeks to accept or decline the invitation.
• Once accepted, reviewers are requested to submit their review within 4 weeks.
• Reminders are sent regularly to ensure timely completion.

Delays may occur depending on reviewers’ availability, which can extend the review timeline.

Editorial Oversight

The Editorial Team, comprising the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team, is responsible for overseeing the academic quality, integrity, and efficiency of the journal.

The Editorial Team performs two primary functions. First, it manages all regular submissions by assessing their suitability, assigning Assistant Editors, inviting reviewers, and making independent editorial decisions. Each manuscript is typically sent to two reviewers, and the Editorial Team actively follows up to ensure timely responses. Editorial decisions are made independently; however, in cases of conflicting reviews or author(s) concerns, or any possible editorial oversight, members of the Editorial Team consult one another to reach a balanced and collaborative decision.

Second, the Editorial Team evaluates and approves proposals for Special Issues or thematic collections. These are assessed for originality, scholarly contribution, and thematic coherence. Guest Editors are responsible for managing submissions within Special Issues, while the Editor retains overall supervisory authority and is consulted in case of any issues.

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists. In such cases, another qualified editor is assigned to ensure impartiality.

Decision making Statement: Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Editorial decisions are generally based on a minimum of two completed reviews. Possible decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions (revise and resubmit)
• Reject

The most common outcome is to submit a “revised and updated manuscript.” Authors are required to submit a detailed response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed. This response is evaluated alongside the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, if required.

The journal typically allows up to three rounds of revision.

Handling Reviewer Disagreements

In cases where reviewer reports conflict significantly, the Editor, in consultation with the Editorial Team, may:

• Weigh the reviews based on their depth and relevance
• Seek clarification from reviewers
• Invite an additional independent reviewer

Final decisions are made by the Editorial Team, ensuring fairness, academic rigor, and consistency.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, including rejection. Appeals must be submitted with a clear justification addressing reviewer comments and editorial concerns.

The Editorial Team will review the appeal, which may involve consultation with additional reviewers or consulting editors. The final decision after appeal rests with the Editor and is considered binding.

Appeals and complaints may be reported to the journal at: editorjci@numl.edu.pk

Conflict of Interest in Peer Review

All participants in the peer review process must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

• Authors must declare all financial and non-financial conflicts.
• Reviewers must decline assignments where a conflict exists, including prior collaboration, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships with the author(s).
• Editors must recuse themselves from decision-making where conflicts arise.

The journal ensures transparent handling of conflicts through reassignment and disclosure where necessary.

Ethical Conduct in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
• Avoid personal or inappropriate criticism
• Adhere to professional and respectful communication standards

The Editorial Team reserves the right to moderate or request revision of reviews that contain inappropriate language.

Submission to Publication Timeline

The NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry is committed to maintaining an efficient and transparent publication process.

• Submission to First Decision: Approximately 4 to 8 weeks
  (Based on reviewer availability and response times)
• Submission to Final Decision: Approximately 16 to 24 weeks
  (Including revision rounds)
• Acceptance to Publication: Approximately 16 to 24 weeks
  (Subject to final formatting and issue scheduling)

These timelines are estimates and may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the responsiveness of reviewers and authors.