The Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Scholarly Track undergo rigorous, double-blind peer review. Neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identity throughout the evaluation process.

1. The Four-Stage Review Workflow

Stage 1: Desk Screening & Similarity Check (Days 1–7)
The Managing Editor reviews the submission for thematic alignment, scope, and formatting. Every paper is processed through a scholarly similarity service (Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate). Papers displaying unoriginality or undisclosed AI synthesis are desk-rejected immediately.

Stage 2: Double-Blind Expert Review (Weeks 2–6)
The Section Editor assigns the anonymized manuscript to a minimum of two independent, external peer reviewers with recognized subject-matter expertise. Reviewers sign a confidentiality undertaking and conflict-of-interest waiver.

Stage 3: Editorial Decision & Synthesis (Week 7)
The Section Editor evaluates reviewer reports and issues one of four formal determinations:

Accept as Submitted: Minor typographical corrections only.
Minor Revisions: Factual clarifications or supplementary citations required (14-day turnaround).
Major Revisions: Theoretical reworking or extensive structural adjustments (30-day turnaround, re-reviewed).
Reject: The manuscript fails our scholarly bar or methodology threshold.

Stage 4: Copyediting, Proofs & DOI Deposit (Weeks 8–10)
Accepted papers are copyedited, typeset into galley proofs and JATS XML, approved by authors, assigned a Crossref DOI, and scheduled into the next numbered issue.

2. Evaluation Rubric for Reviewers

Reviewers evaluate submissions against five core academic benchmarks on a standardized 1–5 scale:

Criterion	Core Inquiry	Scale
1. Originality & Contribution	Does the article advance a novel thesis or unearth unexamined literary archives?	1 – 5
2. Theoretical Methodology	Is the critical or theoretical apparatus applied with nuance and conceptual discipline?	1 – 5
3. Engagement with Literature	Does the author demonstrate mastery of existing South Asian and international scholarship?	1 – 5
4. Textual Evidence & Analysis	Are primary quotations and translation passages interpreted closely and accurately?	1 – 5
5. Clarity of Prose	Is the argument framed in lucid, disciplined scholarly English without obfuscating jargon?	1 – 5

3. Reviewer Code of Conduct & AI Prohibition

Reviewer Confidentiality & AI Ban (§6)

Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential legal property of their authors. Reviewers must not disclose, cite, or share manuscripts prior to publication.

Absolute Prohibition on AI Uploads: In accordance with Section 6 of our Master Brief, reviewers are strictly forbidden from uploading manuscripts, abstracts, or passages into public or commercial generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Grammarly web tools). Doing so constitutes a severe breach of author confidentiality and copyright.