Journal of Medieval and Islamic History pays great attention to the role of peer review. Reviewers evaluate the article upon an assessment form includes the reviewing criteria of JMIH as follows:

- Importance / Originality

- Methodology

- Bibliography; both print and digital

- Language and the extent to which subjects of the paper are harmonic with one another

- Results

Procedures

1- Two reviewers are selected for the paper; at least one is from outside the Journal’s community (Faculty, Editorial board, and advisory board).

2- The researcher receives the response of the reviewers: the evaluation, the paper, and the attached report, (if applicable).

3- If the reviewers respond by accepting, the paper is accepted for publication and two letters of acceptance are extracted in Arabic and English.

4- If the reviewers respond by refusing, the paper will be rejected without a refund of the reviewing fees.

5- If one of the two reviewers refuse and the other accepts, a third reviewer shall be chosen to separate, considering the report of the third reviewer the editorial committee gives the final decision.

Submission

1- The Author submits his research article through our journal’s online submission system. He will need to register for an account to do this.

2- Once his account is set up, he will need to continue the submission process.

Journal check

The paper will then be checked by the journal Editor to see if it fits with the aims and scope of the journal. If ok, it will enter it into a rigorous, double-blind peer-review process that considers the quality, originality, approach, and clarity of the paper.

Decision

1- Once the reviewers (from two to three reviewers) have reviewed the manuscript, they will make one of the following recommendations:

2- Accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. The final decision will be decided by the editorial committee.

3- Reviewer feedback on the paper will be provided to the corresponding author via e.mail

Revision

The author will receive an email from the Editor containing the final decision.

If the author is asked to make revisions, he has two weeks to resubmit for minor revisions, and three weeks resubmit for major revisions.

Once he has resubmitted his paper, it will be reassigned to the same reviewers if they to check whether their comments have been addressed.

If sufficient improvements have been made, the paper will be accepted. If not, he may be asked to perform multiple revisions or have his paper rejected.

Editor-in-Chief

The editor-in-chief oversees all the editors of a publication and ensures each issue is released on time. With the assistant editors, the editor-in-chief creates the editorial board, or outline, for each of the publication's editions or issues. The editor-in-chief reviews all articles, reviews, and photographs, and provides suggestions, if needed, about any changes to make before the publication goes to press or is released digitally. Layouts and design need approval by the editor-in-chief. In the end, the editor-in-chief has the final word about which articles and reviews get published.

The editor-in-chief has the responsibility of drawing up budget proposals and any other information requested by the publishers. The editor-in-chief generates ideas for new ways of doing things, such as using new technology, implementing ways to increase readership, and how to call great scholars to write in the journal. Tough problems are often handled by the editor-in-chief, and advice about editorial issues is also provided. Whenever a social function happens, the editor-in-chief is the publication's representative, and some travel can be required.

Co-Editor

Under supervision of the Editor-in-chief, co-editor participates in all processes of editing and publishing as editors. 

Editorial Board: 

• Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency 

• Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest for all involved in the publication process, including editors, staff (e.g., editorial and administration), authors, and reviewers 

• Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s work 

• Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner 

• Being vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspect reasons 

• Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information, particularly those required to replicate the research, before and after publication 

• Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions 

• Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer-review process 

• Informing authors of solicited manuscripts that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal’s standard procedures or outlining the decision-making process if it differs from those procedures 

• Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards.