Peer Review Policy

The "Al-Behishat Research Archive" is committed to publishing high-quality, original research papers that contribute to the advancement of knowledge. To ensure the quality of published work, the journal implements a rigorous peer-review process. This policy outlines the guidelines and procedures for reviewers involved in the peer-review process for the journal.

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field of research, as well as their publication record and experience in peer review. The editorial team strives to select reviewers who are unbiased and have no conflicts of interest with the submitted manuscript.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential and refrain from disclosing any information about the manuscript to anyone outside the editorial team.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to submit their reviews within the designated timeframe. Delays can significantly impact the publication process.
  • Objectivity and Fairness: Reviews should be objective, fair, and constructive. Reviewers should focus on the scientific merit of the work, avoiding personal attacks or biases.
  • Thoroughness: Reviews should be thorough and address all aspects of the manuscript, including the originality, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive feedback that can help the authors improve their manuscript. This includes identifying weaknesses and suggesting specific ways to address them.

4. Review Process

  • Initial Screening: The editor initially screens all submitted manuscripts for relevance to the journal's scope and basic adherence to formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected without further review.
  • Double-Blind Review: Eligible manuscripts are then sent to two or more reviewers for double-blind peer review. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the process.
  • Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include accept for publication, revise and resubmit, or reject.
  • Author Communication: The editor communicates the decision to the authors, along with the reviewers' comments (in an anonymized format) in case of revisions or rejection.

5. Appeals

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may submit an appeal. Appeals should be based on specific concerns about the review process or the reviewers' comments. The editor will review the appeal and may consult with additional reviewers if necessary.

6. Ethical Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines for peer review, such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines address issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and reviewer misconduct.