About the Journal

Scope of BURJIS

BURJIS is a peer-reviewed research journal, published by department of Islamic Studies and Research, University of Science & Technology, Bannu since 2014. It publishes research articles in all disciplines of Islamic studies including the Qur’anic and hadith sciences, Sirah, theology, Islamic law and jurisprudence. Moreover, the articles related to other disciplines’ other than Islamic Studies with the focus on Islamic studies contents are also published in it.

BURJIS publishes peer-reviewed, original research and review articles in an open access format. Accepted articles span the full extent of the Islamic Studies.

BURJIS aims to be the world's most important Islamic Studies journal. The journal evaluates the research methods of each article for validity and accepts articles solely on the basis of the research. Likewise, by not restricting papers to a narrow discipline, BURJIS facilitates the discovery of the connections between papers, whether within or between disciplines.

BURJIS offers authors a continuous-publication format and global distribution for their research via BURJIS Journal Online. All articles are professionally copyedited and typeset to ensure quality.

Those who should submit to BURJIS include:

• Authors who want their articles to receive quality reviews and efficient production.
• Authors who want their articles to receive free, broad, and global distribution on a powerful, highly discoverable publishing platform.
• Authors who want their articles marketed by a leading Islamic Science publisher.
• Authors who want or need their articles to be open access.

Aims and Objectives of BURJIS

The objective of BURJIS is to publish original research and explore new dimensions of knowledge in the field of Islamic Studies. The journal also aims to identify and study contemporary problems of the Muslim world, contribute to the revival of Islamic heritage, and publish research articles to advance Islamic disciplines such Islamic Banking, Halal Management System etc.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

All reviewers are therefore expected to comply with the following ethical guidelines.

1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. The contents of a manuscript must not be shared, discussed, copied, or disclosed to any person without prior permission from the Editor. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for their own research or personal benefit.

2. Reviewer Independence and Conflict of interest

Reviewers must provide an objective and independent assessment of the manuscript. Before accepting an assignment, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

A reviewer should decline the review if:

• They have a personal or professional relationship with any of the authors.
• They have recently collaborated with any of the authors.
• They belong to the same institution or department as an author where independence may be compromised.
• They have a financial, academic, or personal interest that could influence their judgment.
• They have any other relationship that may create a reasonable perception of bias.

The journal may replace a reviewer whenever a potential conflict of interest is identified.

3. Subject-Specific Expertise

Reviewers should accept manuscripts only when the subject matter falls within their academic discipline or area of research expertise. The journal will endeavor to assign manuscripts to reviewers whose qualifications, research interests, publications, and academic specialization are relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewers should inform the Editor if they do not possess sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript properly.

4. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews must be objective, balanced, constructive, and based on the academic quality of the manuscript. Reviewers must not make personal comments about the authors or express discriminatory, hostile, or offensive opinions.

The review should focus on the research question, methodology, originality, evidence, analysis, interpretation, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

5. Thorough and Constructive Review

Reviewers are expected to provide a detailed and substantive assessment of the manuscript. A review should not consist merely of a brief statement such as “accepted,” “rejected,” or “the paper is good.”

Where appropriate, reviewers should comment on:

• Originality and novelty of the research;
• Clarity of research objectives and questions;
• Adequacy of the literature review;
• Appropriateness of the research methodology;
• Accuracy and adequacy of data analysis;
• Presentation and interpretation of results;
• Relationship between results and conclusions;
• Quality and relevance of references;
• Academic and practical contribution;
• Organization, clarity, and language of the manuscript; and
• Ethical considerations relevant to the research.

Reviewers should provide sufficient explanation to support their recommendations.

6. Identification of Relevant Published Work

Reviewers should identify important relevant published research that may have been omitted by the authors. However, reviewers should not insist that authors cite the reviewer’s own publications unless such references are genuinely necessary and academically relevant.

7. Originality and Plagiarism

Reviewers should inform the Editor if they identify substantial similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate citation practices, or other concerns regarding research integrity.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editor.

8. Reviewer–Author Communication

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless specifically authorized by the Editor. All communication concerning the review should normally take place through the journal’s designated editorial system.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the journal. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the Editor as soon as possible. If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the required period, they should decline the assignment so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.

10. Reviewer Overlap and Multiple Assignments

Reviewers should disclose any circumstances in which their involvement in multiple manuscripts from the same authors, research group, institution, or closely related research project may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The Editorial Board will monitor reviewer assignments to minimize inappropriate reviewer–author overlap and maintain the independence of the peer review process.

Reviewer Declaration

By accepting a manuscript for review, the reviewer confirms that:

“I declare that I have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect my independent assessment of this manuscript. I agree to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and will provide an objective, fair, constructive, and sufficiently detailed review based solely on the academic merits of the work. I will not use, disclose, or reproduce unpublished information contained in the manuscript.”

The journal reserves the right to discontinue a reviewer’s services if there is evidence of unethical conduct, inadequate reviewing, breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, inappropriate reviewer–author interaction, or other violation of these ethical guidelines.