Peer-Review Process

Al-Qal'aa Journal for Scientific Publishing adopts a rigorous and transparent peer-review mechanism based on the Double-Blind Peer Review system. This ensures the objective and impartial evaluation of research by specialized experts, without revealing the author's identity to the reviewers or vice versa. The review process is carried out through the following sequential steps:

1. Receipt and Initial Review

Upon receiving the research, the editorial board conducts an initial review to ensure its relevance to the journal's scope and its compliance with publication guidelines and research preparation instructions.

2. Anonymizing the Author

All identifying data of the researcher (name, affiliation) are removed from the research copy before forwarding it to the reviewers to ensure an impartial evaluation.

3. Assigning the Research to Reviewers

The research is sent to at least two reviewers with expertise and precise specialization in the subject of the study. They are carefully selected to ensure their competence and independence.

4. Research Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers examine the research based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Innovation: The extent of the research's contribution to adding new knowledge.

  • Scientific Methodology: The clarity and soundness of the research methodology and procedures.

  • Depth and Analysis: The quality of the results' interpretation and the depth of their discussion.

  • Language and Citation: The soundness of the writing style, accuracy of citations, and comprehensiveness of references.

  • Scientific Significance: The value of the research and its impact in the field of specialization.

5. Reports and Recommendations

Each reviewer provides a detailed report that includes one of the following recommendations:

  • Acceptance of the research without modifications.

  • Acceptance of the research with minor modifications.

  • Acceptance of the research with major modifications.

  • Rejection of the research for failing to meet scientific standards.

6. Final Decision Making

The editorial board reviews the reviewers' reports. In the event of fundamental differences between the two evaluations, the research is presented to a third reviewer to make a decisive ruling.

7. Notifying the Researcher and Modifications

The researcher is notified of the decision and provided with a copy of the comments (while maintaining the reviewers' anonymity). In the case of conditional acceptance, the researcher is obligated to make the required modifications and provide a detailed response explaining how they were addressed.

8. Final Review and Publication

The editorial board or the reviewers verify that all comments have been addressed in the revised version. After fulfilling all scientific conditions, the research is finally accepted and undergoes layout and formatting for publication.

Additional Notes:

  • During the evaluation, reviewers may request to view the raw data upon which the study is based to verify the results. The journal handles these requests with strict confidentiality.

  • Reviewers are committed to strict confidentiality and must not use the research content or share it with any external party