ICON-BAFI
The 1st International Scientific Conference on Non‑Banking Financial Instruments
- Benghazi, Libya
until the opening
- Days
- ––
- Hours
- ––
- Minutes
- ––
- 1
Stage 1
Initial screening
The Scientific Committee reviews full papers to confirm their relevance to the conference tracks, the completeness of their essential elements, and the soundness of their referencing and academic integrity. A paper may be returned to its author to complete missing elements before it is sent for review, or rejected if it falls outside the scope of the conference or a breach of academic integrity is established.
- 2
Stage 2
Selection of reviewers
The Scientific Committee sends each paper that passes initial screening to two reviewers specialised in its subject, each of whom provides an independent assessment. Reviewers are chosen for their scientific expertise and ability to assess the paper, and the absence of any conflict of interest affecting their impartiality. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline to review when an objective assessment is not possible.
- 3
Stage 3
Review system and confidentiality
The conference uses double-blind review: the author's identity is concealed from reviewers, and the reviewers' identities are concealed from the author. The review copy is sent after names, institutional affiliations and identifying details have been removed from the text and the file properties, and a code specific to each paper is used to manage correspondence.
Papers, review reports and correspondence are treated as confidential and are available only to those authorised to manage the process within their responsibilities. Reviewers undertake not to share the content of papers or use their ideas and data for their own benefit, and comments reach the author through the conference's official channels after anything revealing the reviewers' identities has been removed.
- 4
Stage 4
Evaluation criteria
Papers are checked for citation similarity and for the proportion of AI-generated text, according to the conditions set out in advance and sent to researchers.
The two reviewers assess the paper against the following criteria, as appropriate to its theoretical or applied nature:
- Relevance of the topic to the conference tracks and to issues of Islamic sukuk, non-banking financial instruments and community development.
- Originality of the idea and clarity of the scientific contribution compared with previous studies.
- Clarity of the research problem, objectives and questions, and their coherence with the content.
- Suitability of the research method to the topic and soundness of its application, whether analytical, jurisprudential, comparative, field-based or otherwise.
- Accuracy of the financial and economic treatment, and soundness of reasoning and jurisprudential referencing in papers addressing Sharia aspects.
- Strength of analysis and soundness of evidence and data, and consistency of the results and conclusions with the method and material on which the paper relies.
- Scientific or practical value of the paper and its contribution to understanding Islamic sukuk or developing their applications and developmental impact, according to its subject.
- Adequacy and relevance of previous studies and references, and accuracy of citations and referencing.
- Coherence of the paper's structure, clarity of presentation, soundness of language and quality of editing.
- Commitment to academic integrity and research ethics, including originality of content and no falsification of data or results.
- 5
Stage 5
Review reports
Each reviewer submits a reasoned report setting out their assessment of the paper, its strengths and weaknesses, the required revisions, and a recommendation to accept, revise or reject. The Scientific Committee reviews both reports, compiles the comments addressed to the author, and resolves any conflict between them before issuing a decision.
- 6
Stage 6
How acceptance or rejection is decided
The Scientific Committee decides on each paper based on the two review reports, how far it meets the evaluation criteria, and the author's response to comments when revisions are requested. The reviewers' recommendations remain the scientific basis for the decision, while the Scientific Committee is responsible for issuing it, documenting its reasons and informing the author.
Possible decisions of the Scientific Committee
Accept without revisions
The paper meets the evaluation criteria, and the Scientific Committee informs the author of its final acceptance.
Accept with minor revisions
The paper needs specific corrections or improvements; final acceptance is confirmed once the Scientific Committee has verified them.
Major revisions and re-evaluation
The paper needs substantial work on its method, analysis, reasoning or results; its acceptance is reconsidered after the revised version is received and evaluated.
Reject
The paper does not meet the acceptance criteria, has substantial unresolved weaknesses, or a breach of academic integrity has been established; the author is informed of the scientific reasons for the decision.
- 7
Stage 7
Handling differing recommendations
When the reviewers' recommendations differ, the Scientific Committee examines the reasons and evidence in both reports, and may ask them for clarification or call on a third specialist reviewer subject to the same blinding and confidentiality rules. It then issues its decision based on the scientific assessment, without relying mechanically on the number of acceptance or rejection recommendations.
- 8
Stage 8
Follow-up of revisions and final acceptance
The author receives the comments to be addressed, with a reasonable deadline set in the notification. The author returns the revised version with a statement explaining how each comment was addressed, and the reasons for not adopting any of them, if applicable.
The Scientific Committee verifies that revisions have been made before confirming final acceptance. Where revisions concern substantive scientific issues requiring specialist opinion, it may return the paper to the reviewers to check that they have been adequately addressed, while the final decision remains its own. It may request further revisions or reject the paper if weaknesses have not been adequately addressed.
A paper is listed among the finally accepted papers only after the evaluation and revision requirements are complete and the author has been informed of final acceptance. Any member of the Scientific Committee refrains from evaluating or deciding on a paper they authored or in which they have an interest affecting their impartiality.