Journal of Sanskrit & Indic Research

1. Review Model

The Journal of Sanskrit & Indic Research operates a double-blind peer review process. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. Authors are responsible for removing all identifying information from the manuscript file before submission (see Manuscript Preparation — Double-Blind Preparation).

Number of reviewers: Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent peer reviewers with specialist expertise in the subject area of the submission. In cases where the two reports are substantially divergent, a third reviewer may be invited at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion.

2. Review Process — Step by Step

1

Submission received The manuscript and cover letter are received by the editorial office. An acknowledgement of receipt is sent to the corresponding author within 5 working days. Within 5 working days
2

Initial editorial screening The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript for: scope fit, originality, minimum scholarly standards, compliance with submission guidelines, and the absence of obvious ethical concerns. Manuscripts that do not pass this stage are returned without external review. Within 2–3 weeks of submission
3

Plagiarism screening Manuscripts passing initial screening are checked for similarity using iThenticate / Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% are returned to the author. Concurrent with screening
4

Reviewer assignment Two external peer reviewers with relevant subject expertise are identified and invited. Reviewers are selected from institutions other than the authors' affiliations to avoid conflicts of interest. Within 1 week of screening
5

External peer review Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the journal's review criteria (see Section 3) and submit a structured report. Reviewers are given a standard review window of 4–6 weeks. 4–8 weeks
6

Editorial decision The editor reviews all reports and issues a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject (see Section 4). The decision and reviewer reports (anonymised) are communicated to the author. Within 2 weeks of receiving reports
7

Revision (if required) Authors are given 2–4 weeks to revise and resubmit, accompanied by a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Major revisions may be sent back to the original reviewers. Minor revisions are assessed by the editor. 2–4 weeks for authors
8

Final decision and acceptance A final Accept or Reject decision is communicated. Accepted manuscripts enter copy-editing and production. Authors receive a proof for approval before publication. Within 2 weeks of revised submission

For indicative end-to-end durations, see the Publishing Timeline page.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript against the following criteria and to provide a structured report covering each point:

Criterion	What reviewers assess
Originality	Does the manuscript present a new argument, finding, interpretation, or edition that advances scholarship in the field?
Scholarly contribution	Does the work make a meaningful contribution to Sanskrit studies or allied disciplines? Is the significance of the contribution clearly articulated?
Engagement with primary sources	Are primary Sanskrit sources correctly cited, translated, and interpreted? Is the philological and textual analysis rigorous?
Engagement with secondary literature	Does the author demonstrate adequate familiarity with relevant existing scholarship? Are important prior works acknowledged?
Methodological rigour	Is the methodology appropriate, clearly described, and consistently applied?
Clarity and structure	Is the argument logically organised and clearly presented? Are the abstract, introduction, and conclusion well-written?
Language quality	Is the English (and/or Sanskrit) writing of an acceptable scholarly standard? Are transliterations accurate and consistent?
Ethical compliance	Does the submission raise any concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, attribution, or research ethics?

Reviewers are not asked to comment on the personal or professional identity of authors. Personal criticism is not appropriate and will not be communicated to authors.

4. Editorial Decision Outcomes

Following external peer review, one of the following four decisions will be communicated to the corresponding author:

✓ Accept The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted, or with only minor copy-editing changes that do not require re-review.

↻ Minor Revision The manuscript requires limited revisions (clarifications, additional citations, language corrections). Revised manuscript is assessed by the editor without returning to reviewers.

⟳ Major Revision Substantial revisions are required to the argument, evidence, or structure. Revised manuscript is returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

✗ Reject The manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication. A rejection is issued with reasons. Authors may appeal within 30 days (see Section 5).

All decisions include the anonymised reviewer reports. Authors who receive a revision decision must submit their revised manuscript within the timeframe specified in the decision letter, along with a point-by-point response document addressing each reviewer comment.

Dates recorded: The dates of initial submission, acceptance, and online publication are recorded for all articles and displayed on the published article page, in accordance with the journal's peer review transparency policy.

5. Appeals Against Rejection

Authors who believe that a rejection decision was made in error, or that the review process was not conducted fairly, may submit a formal appeal within 30 days of the decision.

Appeals must be sent to head@sanskrit.du.ac.in with the subject line "Appeal: [Manuscript ID]". The appeal must state the specific grounds — such as a factual error in a reviewer's assessment, a failure to follow published review procedures, or evidence of bias. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the scientific or scholarly judgement of reviewers will not be upheld.

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor who was not involved in the original decision. A response will be provided within 30 days of receipt. For the full appeals procedure, refer to the Publication Ethics — Appeals and Complaints section.

6. Our Reviewers

The journal maintains a panel of peer reviewers drawn from leading institutions in India and abroad, with expertise spanning the full range of the journal's scope: Sanskrit philology, Indian philosophy, linguistics, manuscriptology, poetics, and interdisciplinary Sanskrit studies.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their specialist knowledge, active research profile, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript under review. The journal does not assign manuscripts to reviewers at the same institution as any of the authors.

The journal acknowledges the contribution of all reviewers annually. The names of reviewers who have consented to acknowledgement are published on the journal website at the close of each volume year.

Becoming a reviewer: Scholars with expertise in Sanskrit studies or allied disciplines who wish to join the journal's reviewer panel are welcome to express their interest by writing to head@sanskrit.du.ac.in with a brief statement of their areas of specialisation and a link to their institutional or academic profile.

7. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

Errors or ethical concerns identified after publication are handled through the journal's corrections and retractions procedure. The journal follows COPE Retraction Guidelines and may issue a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction as appropriate.

To report a concern about a published article, contact the editorial office at head@sanskrit.du.ac.in. All reports are treated with confidentiality and investigated within 30 days. For the full policy, see Publication Ethics — Corrections and Retractions.

Peer Review Process