Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy for Journal of al-anfal

1. Introduction

The Journal of al-anfal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and publishing high-quality research. To achieve this, we employ a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the principles and procedures for peer review at the Journal of al-anfal.

2. Principles of Peer Review

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be objective and unbiased, based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript. Personal opinions or beliefs should not influence the review process.
  • Confidentiality: The identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential throughout the review process.
  • Fairness: All manuscripts receive fair and equal consideration regardless of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, or research background.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the designated timeframe.
  • Constructive criticism: Reviews should be constructive and provide clear and specific feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.

3. Selection of Reviewers

  • The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, selects reviewers based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers are chosen to ensure adequate balance in terms of geographic distribution, experience, and gender.
  • Reviewers with potential conflicts of interest (e.g., co-authors, collaborators, or competitors of the authors) are excluded from the review process.

4. Review Process

  • Manuscripts are submitted electronically and assigned to two anonymous reviewers.
  • Reviewers are provided with clear instructions and evaluation criteria.
  • Reviews are expected to address the following:
    • Originality and significance of the research
    • Methodological soundness
    • Quality of data and analysis
    • Presentation and clarity of the writing
    • Overall contribution to the field
  • Reviewers provide a recommendation (accept, reject, or revise and resubmit) and detailed feedback to the authors.
  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and overall assessment of the manuscript.

5. Appeals

  • Authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision if they disagree with it. Appeals should be submitted in writing and addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by an additional reviewer appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • The final decision on the appeal is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

6. Ethical Considerations

  • The Journal of al-anfal adheres to the highest ethical standards in research and publication. We expect reviewers to:
    • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting to review a manuscript.
    • Maintain the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscript.
    • Not use the information obtained from the manuscript for their own personal or professional gain.