Jurnal ICMES: The Journal of Middle East Studies assesses submissions through an initial editorial screening followed by external peer review. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is assessed by two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to its subject.

Initial Editorial Assessment

The editor first examines whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s focus and scope, follows the Author Guidelines and template, and meets basic standards of scholarly quality and research ethics.

Manuscripts are screened using Turnitin and assessed under the journal’s Plagiarism and AI Policy. Similarity reports support the editor’s assessment; a low similarity score does not, by itself, establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined or returned for revision before external review.

External Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, quality of evidence, and clarity of argument. Their assessment considers:

1. Title and abstract: Whether they accurately represent the research question, approach, and main findings.
2. Introduction and literature: Whether the research question is clearly established, relevant scholarship is critically discussed, and the contribution of the study is explained.
3. Methods and sources: Whether the research approach is appropriate and sufficiently explained, and whether the sources and evidence are credible and adequate.
4. Analysis and discussion: Whether the arguments are coherent, supported by evidence, and informed by an appropriate analytical framework. Reviewers also consider the originality and significance of the findings.
5. Conclusion: Whether it answers the research question, follows from the analysis, and acknowledges relevant limitations.
6. References and research ethics: Whether sources are properly acknowledged and any ethical concerns require clarification.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose competing interests, and provide constructive comments supported by clear reasons.

Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers may recommend: Acceptance without substantive revision; or Minor revision; or Major revision; or Rejection.

The editor makes the final decision after considering the reviews and the manuscript’s overall quality. Where recommendations differ substantially or further expertise is needed, an additional review may be requested.

Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a response explaining how they have addressed the comments. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a reasoned explanation. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further assessment. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

Review Duration

The time required depends on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revision rounds. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and any significant delays. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication in a particular issue.

Appeals and ethical concerns are handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and related Journal Policies.