Peer Review Policy

Taj Al-Ma'rifa Journal

1. Peer Review Mechanism

  • The journal adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to maintain objectivity.

  • All submitted research papers undergo scientific evaluation by reviewers specialized in the specific field of the research.

  • At least two reviewers are selected for each paper. A third reviewer may be consulted in case of a significant discrepancy between the reviewers' reports.

2. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and scientific novelty of the research.

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.

  • Soundness of the methodology used and accuracy of the results.

  • Significance of the research and its contribution to scientific and applied knowledge.

  • Adherence to scientific research ethics and the journal’s publication policy.

3. Potential Review Decisions

  • Acceptance for publication as is.

  • Acceptance subject to minor revisions.

  • Acceptance subject to major revisions and resubmission for review.

  • Rejection of the research.

4. Reviewers' Obligations

  • Confidentiality: Commitment to strict confidentiality and non-use of any information or data contained in the research prior to its publication.

  • Objectivity: Providing an objective and scientific report free from any personal or institutional bias.

  • Timeliness: Adherence to the specified timeframe for review, and notifying the Editorial Board immediately in case of inability to complete the review on time.

5. Editorial Board Obligations

  • Ensuring the fairness and transparency of the peer review process.

  • Informing authors of review decisions, supported by the reviewers' comments and recommendations.

  • Not coercing authors to cite the journal’s articles unless it is scientifically necessary and justified.

6. Authors' Rights

  • Receiving a copy of the reviewers' reports to enable modification and improvement of the work.

  • The right to respond to reviewers' comments and clarify their point of view when necessary.