Peer Review Process

Definition

El-Merqib Journal of Humanities adopts a peer review system as a scientific mechanism for evaluating the quality of submitted manuscripts, ensuring integrity and objectivity.

Type of Review

The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure the highest levels of fairness and objectivity.

Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers
Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors

Peer Review Stages

1. Initial Screening

The editorial board reviews the manuscript to ensure:

Compliance with the journal’s scope
Linguistic and methodological soundness

2. Assignment to Reviewers

The manuscript is sent to specialized reviewers (typically one reviewer).

3. Scientific Evaluation

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on defined criteria.

4. Editorial Decision

One of the following decisions is made:

Accept without revisions
Accept with revisions
Resubmit for review
Reject

Evaluation Criteria

Originality and innovation
Importance of the topic
Soundness of methodology
Accuracy of results
Quality of language and style

Review Duration

The review process typically takes 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the nature of the manuscript.

Confidentiality of Review

All manuscripts are treated with strict confidentiality
Manuscripts must not be used prior to publication
Reviewers must not share manuscripts with any third party

Journal Commitments

The journal is committed to:

Ensuring confidentiality of all information exchanged during the review process
Respecting authors’ right to respond to reviewers’ comments
Making publication decisions based solely on scientific evaluation, free from personal or institutional bias
Handling manuscripts fairly and ethically, avoiding any potential conflicts of interest

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are expected to:

Be objective, honest, and ethical
Meet deadlines set by the editorial board
Have strong expertise in the relevant field
Hold an academic rank higher than the submitting researcher, preferably Associate Professor or Professor
Provide precise scientific comments, critiques, and recommendations
Fully comply with the journal’s confidentiality and review standards

Conflict of Interest