Compliance & Ethical Standards

DIsJ Compliance & Ethical Standards

Policy on Academic Equity and the Prohibition of Commercialized Acceleration (Anti-Fast Track)

DIsJ is firmly committed to the principles of professional integrity, transparency, and social justice (‘Adl). To prevent academic discrimination and protect the rights of all scholars, journals indexed in DIsJ must strictly adhere to the following:

Absolute Prohibition of Paid “Fast-Track” Services: DIsJ maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward any form of paid “Fast-Track” or accelerated editorial services. We believe that the speed of publication must be determined solely by scholarly merit and editorial efficiency, not by financial contributions.
- No Hidden Fees: This prohibition applies to all forms of additional charges beyond the standard Article Processing Charge (APC), including but not limited to “Express Review Fees,” “Administrative Priority Charges,” or “Gold/Premium Service Tiers.”
- Merit-Based Progression: DIsJ ensures that every article undergoes a rigorous curation process based purely on scientific quality. No author shall be allowed to “buy time” or bypass the regular editorial queue through financial incentives.
The Ethical Rationale for Prohibiting Fast Track:
- Preserving Academic Integrity: To prevent the “buying and selling of time.” DIsJ ensures that every article undergoes a curation process based purely on scientific quality, free from financial incentives.
- Eliminating Predatory Practices: Aggressive promotion of fast-track services is a hallmark of predatory publishing. By prohibiting this practice, DIsJ actively suppresses deceptive activities that compromise global scholarly standards.
- Ensuring Egalitarian Access (Level Playing Field): We reject the systemic marginalization of researchers with limited financial resources. DIsJ ensures an equal opportunity for all scholars, regardless of their economic background.
Ethical Acceleration for Public Interest (Maslahah): In exceptional circumstances where the rapid dissemination of knowledge is vital for the global community, journals may prioritize specific manuscripts under the principle of Ethical Acceleration.
- Qualified Emergencies: This is restricted to urgent global or regional issues, such as public health crises (pandemics/outbreaks) or severe conflicts threatening regional stability.
- No Additional Costs: Ethical acceleration for public interest must not incur any extra costs for the author. The fee for such articles must remain identical to or lower than the regular APC.
- Transparency of Rationale: Journals must clearly state the reason for such acceleration to maintain editorial accountability.
- Operational Procedure: In such cases, journals are encouraged to redirect these urgent articles to Special Issues or Early View sections, ensuring that the queue for regular submissions remains fair and undisrupted.
Queue Transparency and Fairness: To prevent “hidden” discrimination and ensure a level playing field for all researchers:
- Mandatory Timestamps: Every published article must display its full chronological metadata: Date of Submission, Date of Acceptance, and Date of Publication.
- Accountability: Publicly visible timestamps allow the scholarly community and DIsJ auditors to verify that the editorial process is consistent and that no article has unfairly “jumped the queue” without a valid humanitarian justification.

Timely and Fair Review Policy

The Directory of Islamic Journals (DIsJ) is committed to fostering a healthy, competitive, and equitable publication ecosystem. Indexed journals are mandated to adhere to the following timeline standards to guarantee scholarly rigor while strictly protecting the rights of authors. These timelines must be clearly disclosed on the journal’s website.

Submission to First Decision (Maximum 30 Days). Most journals prohibit multiple submissions, yet many fail to provide timely clarity to authors. It is common for authors to wait months only to receive a Desk Rejection.
- The Ethical Issue: Delaying a desk rejection for months is a form of oppression (Zalim) against authors, as it unjustly obstructs them from seeking publication opportunities elsewhere.
- The Mandate: DIsJ-indexed journals must provide a first decision (Desk Rejection or Acceptance for Review) within a maximum of 30 days.
- Author’s Protection: If a journal fails to provide a decision within this 30-day limit, the author reserves the right to withdraw and resubmit their manuscript to another journal without prejudice.
Review Time: First Review to Final Decision (30 – 180 Days). The peer review process is the heart of research quality. Since no manuscript is perfect—as perfection belongs solely to God—DIsJ rejects any acceleration that compromises substantive depth.
- Minimum Duration (30 Days): To ensure scientific validity, the review process must not be shorter than 30 days. Reviews completed in under 30 days are often superficial or merely formal. Journals must be able to demonstrate substantive correspondence between reviewers and authors.
- Maximum Duration (180 Days): Processes exceeding 180 days are deemed inefficient and potentially oppressive (Zalim). Such delays leave scholarly works in limbo, hindering the author’s professional progression and the public dissemination of knowledge.
Final Decision (Acceptance) to Publication (Maximum 30 Days)
- The Mandate: Accepted articles must be published online within a maximum of 30 days.
- Immediate Visibility: If full-text production requires more time, journals must at least publish the abstract with an “In-Press” or “Early View” status.
- The Rationale: Delaying the publication of a qualified manuscript without a clear technical reason is an unfair administrative practice that obstructs the global flow of knowledge.

Research Data Sharing and Transparency Policy

To uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and replicability, all journals indexed in DIsJ must mandate data transparency. Authors are required to share their underlying research data through the DIsJ Data Sharing Platform. DIsJ recognizes the significant resources (time, cost, and energy) invested in data collection; therefore, data sharing is categorized into two ethical models:

Data Grant or Endowment (Waqf At-Tatsmir/ Hibah Al-Manfa’ah). Authors may choose to provide full access to their research datasets to the global scholarly community free of charge. This model is encouraged as a form of “intellectual charity” to accelerate scientific progress and communal benefit (Maslahah).
Data Licensing or Commercialization (Bai’ al-Haq). Authors who invested substantial resources in data collection (e.g., expensive lab tests, large-scale surveys, or high-risk field research) may opt to share their data through a fair-pricing model. This ensures that the original researcher is justly compensated for their efforts while still allowing other scientists to verify or build upon the findings.
Communication and Transaction Policy
- Direct Interaction: DIsJ acts solely as a technical facilitator and does not intervene in any financial transactions or negotiations.
- Researcher Contacts: The platform will display the author’s contact information (email). Interested researchers must contact the data owner directly to discuss access, licensing, or payment terms.
- Neutrality: DIsJ maintains a position of strict neutrality to ensure the integrity of the platform and to prevent any potential misuse of authority by internal personnel.
Mandatory Exceptions and Privacy Protections. DIsJ acknowledges that certain data cannot be shared due to ethical or legal constraints. Exceptions are granted for:
- Confidentiality: Sensitive data such as patient records, personal identifiers, or information protected by non-disclosure agreements.
- Intellectual Property: Data qualifying for patents (e.g., proprietary software code or industrial designs).
- Ongoing Research: Data from ongoing longitudinal studies that have not yet reached finality.
- Requirement: In such cases, authors must upload a formal Statement of Data Unavailability to the DIsJ platform, clearly outlining the ethical or legal reasons for the restriction.
Intellectual Recognition and Citation Policy. Regardless of the sharing model chosen (Grant, Endowment, License, or Sale), all users of the research data are strictly mandated to acknowledge the data owner.
- Mandatory Citation: Users must formally cite the original dataset and the associated research paper in any subsequent publications, reports, or projects that utilize said data.
- Scholarly Impact: This policy ensures that data owners receive the appropriate academic credit, enhancing their citation impact and professional recognition within the global scholarly community.
- Reciprocity: DIsJ promotes a culture of mutual respect where the hard work of data collection is honored through formal academic attribution.

Generative AI and Ethical Scholarly Publishing Policy

To preserve the sanctity of original thought and intellectual accountability, all journals indexed in DIsJ must implement a comprehensive policy regarding the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI). This policy is built upon three mandatory pillars:

Guidelines for Authors: Accountability and Disclosure
- Mandatory Disclosure: Authors must state if they use generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) when preparing a manuscript, whether for drafting, data analysis, or language editing. This must be in a dedicated section called “AI Usage Declaration” or the Acknowledgment section.
- Non-Authorship Status: AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author. The human authors are legally and ethically responsible for the manuscript’s accuracy, integrity, and originality.
- Prohibition of Fabrication: The use of AI to fabricate data, manipulate scholarly images, or create “hallucinated” (fake) citations is strictly prohibited and is severe academic misconduct.
Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: Confidentiality and Expert Judgment
- Confidentiality Safeguards: Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or any part of the review process into generative AI tools. These actions violate the author’s intellectual property and confidentiality, because AI systems may absorb and store the data.
- Human-Centric Evaluation: Reviewers must provide their expert analysis. Using AI to generate peer review reports is considered a dereliction of professional duty.
Guidelines for Editors: Human-in-the-Loop Oversight
- Integrity Screening: Editors are encouraged to use AI-detection software as part of the initial desk review to protect against automated content generation.
- Final Editorial Authority: The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript must be based on human editorial judgment, ensuring that the “Human-in-the-Loop” principle is maintained across the OIC digital scholarship ecosystem.

Quality Control Standards