Peer Review Policy

Al-Bahath Peer Review Policy

Policy Statement:

Al-Bahath is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic rigor. All research articles submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure objectivity, validity, and contribution to the field.

Peer Review Overview

Feature Policy Specification
Review Type Double-Blind Peer Review (Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other)
Minimum Reviewers At least 2 independent external experts per manuscript
Average Turnaround 4 to 6 weeks from submission to first decision
Ethics Standards Full adherence to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines
Plagiarism Check Mandatory screening via Turnitin / Similarity Check prior to review

The Peer Review Workflow

 

1.Initial Desk Evaluation & Screening:1–3 Days.

The Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor reviews the submission for scope fit, formatting, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts undergo automated similarity screening (similarity threshold: typically less than 15–20%). Non-compliant papers are returned or rejected at the desk.

2.Reviewer Selection & Invitation:1–2 Weeks.

Anonymized manuscripts are assigned to at least two subject-matter experts. Reviewers are selected based on track record, lack of conflicts of interest, and absence of recent collaboration with authors.

3.Double-Blind Peer Evaluation:3–4 Weeks.

Reviewers evaluate original methodology, theoretical soundness, clarity, and contribution. They submit detailed feedback along with an official recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

4.Editorial Decision & Communication:1 Week.

The Handling Editor weighs reviewer comments and renders a decision. If revisions are required, authors receive anonymized reviewer reports and a timeline to resubmit.

5.Final Verification & Acceptance:1–2 Weeks.

Revised manuscripts undergo re-evaluation by the handling editor (or original reviewers for major revisions). Once all requirements are satisfied, the paper receives formal editorial acceptance.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities & Ethical Conduct

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline invitations if financial, institutional, or personal conflicts exist with any author or affiliated institution.

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are treated as strictly confidential documents. Unreviewed content cannot be shared or utilized for personal research.

  • Constructive Objectivity: Reviews should be objective, clear, and supported by arguments, avoiding personal attacks or derogatory comments.

  • Detection of Malpractice: Reviewers are expected to alert the editor to substantial similarity with previously published work or potential data fabrication.

Appeals & Editorial Independence

Editorial Independence: Editors make final decisions based solely on scientific merit, relevance, and reviewer assessments, independent of commercial considerations or institutional pressure.

  • Appeals Process: Authors who believe a decision was made due to a technical error or reviewer misunderstanding may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief detailing point-by-point counter-arguments backed by evidence.

  • Reviewer Recognition: Reviewers receive formal certification/acknowledgment via platforms like Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (formerly Publons) for their contribution to journal quality.