Reviewer Guidlines

First: Introduction
El-Merqib Journal of Humanities highly values the scientific role played by reviewers in ensuring the quality of published research. The journal relies on reviewers as a fundamental pillar in promoting academic integrity and enhancing the quality of scholarly content.
Second: (Objectives of the Peer Review Process)
The peer review process aims to:
•    Evaluate the quality and originality of the research 
•    Ensure the soundness of the scientific methodology 
•    Improve the manuscript through constructive scholarly feedback 
•    Support editorial decisions regarding publication 
Third: Responsibilities of the Reviewer
The reviewer is expected to adhere to the following:
1. Confidentiality
•    Treat the manuscript with complete confidentiality 
•    Do not share or use its content prior to publication 
2. Objectivity
•    Provide an unbiased scientific evaluation 
•    Avoid personal or institutional bias 
3. Scientific Competence
•    Accept review assignments only within their field of expertise 
•    Decline if unable to perform the evaluation 
4. Conflict of Interest
•    Disclose any potential conflicts of interest 
•    Refrain from reviewing in case of conflict 
Fourth: Review Process Steps
1.    Accept or decline the review invitation within a specified time 
2.    Read the manuscript thoroughly 
3.    Evaluate the manuscript based on the approved criteria 
4.    Prepare a clear and detailed review report 
5.    Submit the final recommendation 
Fifth: Evaluation Criteria
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on the following aspects:
✔ Originality and Innovation
•    Does the research provide a new scientific contribution? 
✔ Significance of the Topic
•    Is the topic of scientific or practical value? 
✔ Methodology
•    Is the methodology appropriate and sound? 
✔ Results and Discussion
•    Are the results clear and supported by evidence? 
✔ References
•    Are they properly and accurately documented? 
✔ Language and Style
•    Is the language clear and correct? 
Sixth: Final Recommendations
The reviewer selects one of the following decisions:
•     Accept as is 
•     Accept with minor revisions 
•     Reconsider after major revisions 
•     Reject 
Seventh: Writing the Review Report
The report should include:
1.    General Summary 
o    A brief description and overall evaluation of the manuscript 
2.    Major Comments 
o    Related to methodology or results 
3.    Minor Comments 
o    Related to language or formatting 
4.    Clear Recommendations 
o    Specific suggestions for improvement 
Eighth: Review Ethics
The journal adheres to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers must:
•    Report any suspected plagiarism 
•    Not use information for personal benefit 
•    Respect authors’ rights 
Ninth: Review Timeline
•    Reviews are preferably completed within 2–4 weeks 
•    The journal should be notified in case of delay 
Tenth: Notes and Comments
•    Comments should be constructive, not personal criticism 
•    Provide clear and actionable feedback 
•    Additional references may be suggested when necessary