Publication Malpractice Statement

Al-Khadim Foundation, the publisher of the Al-Khadim Research Journal of Islamic Culture and Civilization (ARJICC), is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers are so followed by this journal.

In addition, it is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors that they adhere to the best-practice standards for ethical behaviour set forth in the ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Islamic Culture, Religious Study and Civilization Journals.

The three documents described above should always be examined for entire details; however, the following summary of key components is provided for your convenience.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 


Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Without the authors' express written approval, editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information revealed in a submitted manuscript for their own research. Editors will maintain the confidentiality of any privileged information or ideas they acquire while working on the text, and they will not exploit them for their own benefit. Editors will ask another member of the editorial board to handle manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest stemming from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the papers.

Publication decisions

All submitted manuscripts that are being considered for publication go through peer review by at least two subject-matter experts, according to the editors. Based on the validity of the work in question, its significance to researchers and readers, the reviewers' comments, and any current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief determines which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published. When making this choice, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

When ethical issues with a submitted manuscript or published paper are brought up, editors (together with the publisher and/or society) will take appropriate action. Even if an act of unethical publishing behaviour is found years after publication, it will still be investigated. The COPE Flowcharts are used by ARJICC  editor when handling situations involving possible misconduct. If further inquiry reveals that the ethical concern is valid, the journal will publish a modification, retraction, expression of concern, or other remark that may be pertinent.

Duties of Reviewers

participation in editorial judgments

Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and may help authors improve their submissions through editorial interactions with editors. The core of scientific endeavour is peer review, which is a crucial element of formal scholarly communication. All academics who want to contribute to the scientific method must undertake a reasonable amount of reviewing, according to ARJICC , who shares this viewpoint with many others.


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research presented in a manuscript or realizes that it will be impossible to complete the review promptly should notify the editors right away and decline the invitation to review so that substitute reviewers can be recruited.


Any manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents and must be kept as such; they cannot be shared with or shown to anyone unless the editor has given permission (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This is true for invited reviewers who choose not to participate in the review.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be undertaken impartially, remarks made with clarity and justification, and then used by the writers to enhance their article. It is wrong to criticize the authors personally.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should point out pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Any claim that is based on an observation, deduction, or argument that has already been recorded in another publication needs to be supported by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also let the editors know if they have any personal knowledge of any significant similarities or overlaps between the article being considered and any other material (public or unpublished).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has relationships or connections with any of the authors, businesses or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein that could be construed as competitive, cooperative, or other relationships or connections should immediately notify the editors to declare their relationships or connections and decline the invitation to review so that substitute reviewers can be contacted.

Without the authors' express written authorization, a reviewer may not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own work. It is required that any confidential information or ideas received through peer review not be used for the reviewer's own personal gain. This is true for invited reviewers who choose not to participate in the review.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should give a truthful account of the work done and the outcomes, followed by a dispassionate appraisal of the study's relevance. The manuscript should include enough specifics and citations to allow other authors to duplicate the work. In contrast to editorial "opinion" or perspective pieces, review articles should be truthful, impartial, and complete. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are inappropriate and represent unethical behaviour.

Data access and retention

The study's raw data may be requested from the authors along with the publication for editorial review, and if possible, they should be ready to make the data available to the public. In any case, authors should make sure that such data are accessible to other qualified professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably through an institutional or subject-based data repository or another data centre), provided that participant confidentiality can be maintained and that legal restrictions on the release of proprietary data are not in place.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must make sure that all works they write and submit are wholly original, and if they do borrow someone else's ideas or words, they must properly credit them. Additionally, publications that had a significant impact on the description of the work reported in the manuscript should be referenced. Plagiarism can take many different forms, such as "passing off" another author's paper as the author's own, copying or paraphrasing significant portions of another paper without giving due credit, or claiming the findings of other people's study. All forms of plagiarism are forbidden and represent unethical publishing behaviour.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

It is not advisable to publish papers reporting essentially the same study in more than one journal or principal publication. As a result, authors shouldn't submit a work that has previously been accepted by or published in another publication. The simultaneous submission of a paper to multiple journals is unethical publishing practise and is not accepted.

If certain requirements are met, it may be justified to publish some papers (such clinical guidelines and translations) in more than one journal. The secondary publishing, which must represent the same information and interpretation of the source document, requires the approval of the authors and editors of the relevant journals. The secondary publication must include a citation to the initial reference.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only those people who are able to publicly accept responsibility for the content and who meet the following authorship criteria should be recognised as authors in the manuscript: I made substantial contributions to the idea, planning, carrying out, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the study; (ii) wrote the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content; and (iii) had a chance to review and approve the final version of the paper before agreeing to submit it for publication. All people who contributed significantly to the work described in the article but did not meet the requirements for authorship (e.g., technical support, writing and editing aid, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after receiving their written consent. The corresponding author should make sure that the author list includes all appropriate coauthors (as defined above) and excludes any ineligible ones. They should also confirm that all coauthors have viewed the final draught of the paper, approved it, and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any conflicts of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript should be disclosed by the authors as soon as feasible (usually by completing a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript). Financial and non-financial potential conflicts of interest, such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interests, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing agreements, are a few examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors must make sure that they have appropriately recognized the work of others and must list any sources that had a significant impact on how the reported work was defined. Without the source's express, written consent, information collected informally (via conversation, correspondence, or discussions with third parties) cannot be utilized or reported. Authors must get the specific written consent of the author(s) of the work engaged in these services before using any information they learn while performing confidential services, such as reviewing grant applications or manuscripts.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

The authors must make it explicit in the manuscript whether the work uses any chemicals, techniques, or tools that have any special risks inherent in their usage. The article should contain a statement to the effect that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and institutional rules and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them if the work involves the use of animals or human volunteers. For experiments involving human subjects, authors must also declare in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained. Human participants' private rights must always be respected.

Peer review

Authors must actively engage in the peer review process and provide fast responses to editors' requests for further information, raw data, clarifications, and documentation of ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright clearances. If a first decision of "revisions necessary" is made, authors should promptly, methodically, and point-by-point respond to the reviewers' remarks before editing and resubmitting their work to the journal within the specified deadline.

Fundamental errors in published works

It is the responsibility of authors to swiftly tell the journal's editors or publisher of any material errors or inaccuracies in their own published work and work with them to either withdraw the manuscript or correct it in an erratum. The authors must promptly fix or retract the manuscript or offer proof to the journal editors that it is accurate if the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a serious error or inaccuracy.

Duties of the Publisher

Treatment of unethical publishing practices

The publisher will work closely with the editors to take all necessary steps to clarify the issue and correct the offending article in cases of suspected or established scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism. This covers the speedy release of an update, clarification, or, in the worst scenario, the retraction of the problematic piece of work. The publisher and editors must work together to identify and stop the publication of papers that contain research misconduct. Under no circumstances should this misconduct be encouraged or knowingly permitted to occur.

Access to journal content

By collaborating with organizations and maintaining our own archive, the publisher provides accessibility and is dedicated to the long-term availability and preservation of research.