Peer Review Policy

Ibn Khaldoun Journal for Studies and Researches adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system for all research articles subject to peer review, with the aim of ensuring scientific integrity, independence, and objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts.

First: Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening before being referred for scientific peer review. This screening aims to verify:

The manuscript’s compatibility with the journal’s scope and objectives.
Compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.
The originality and scientific novelty of the manuscript.
The preliminary soundness of its methodology.
The clarity of the research problem and objectives.
The quality of the abstract and keywords.
The accuracy of citations and references.
Compliance with the journal’s technical requirements.
The absence of clear indications of research misconduct.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at the initial screening stage if it does not meet the essential scientific or technical requirements, without referring it for external peer review.

Second: Similarity and Research Integrity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subject to a text-similarity check using appropriate tools. The similarity percentage is not automatically interpreted as evidence of plagiarism; rather, the results are reviewed and evaluated by the relevant editor.

The journal reserves the right to take appropriate action when there are indications of plagiarism, manipulation, or any form of research misconduct.

Third: Type of Peer Review

The journal adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Each research article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and specific specialization in the subject of the manuscript.

Fourth: Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on:

Specific academic specialization.
Research expertise.
Scientific competence.
Independence.
Absence of conflicts of interest.

A reviewer will not be selected if they are affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors, or if they have a professional, research, or personal relationship with the author that may affect the objectivity of the review.

Reviewers are also prohibited from using information contained in the manuscript or benefiting from it before its publication.

Fifth: Peer Review Period

The journal aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately three weeks from the date on which the reviewer accepts the review assignment.

The duration may vary depending on the subject area, availability of reviewers, and nature of the manuscript. In the event of significant delay, the Editorial Board will take appropriate action, including appointing an alternative reviewer when necessary or informing the authors of the delay.

Sixth: Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to a range of criteria, including:

Originality of the topic.
Importance and scientific value of the research.
Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
Appropriateness of the methodology.
Soundness of the analysis and discussion.
Validity and consistency of the findings.
Scientific contribution of the manuscript.
Quality, currency, and relevance of the references.
Clarity of language and academic presentation.
Compliance with research ethics.

Seventh: Peer Review Decisions

The reviewer’s recommendation may fall into one of the following categories:

Accept without revisions.
Accept subject to minor revisions.
Major revisions and resubmission for further review.
Reject.

A reviewer’s report does not constitute the final publication decision. The relevant editor or Editorial Board retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

Eighth: Divergent Reviewer Reports

If the two reviewers reach substantially different recommendations, the Editorial Board may refer the manuscript to a third independent reviewer. The final decision will then be based on the overall assessment of the available reports and the editorial evaluation of the manuscript.

Ninth: Author Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors are given an appropriate period to address the reviewers’ comments. Authors are required to submit:

A revised version of the manuscript.
A detailed response to the reviewers’ comments explaining how each comment has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers when substantial revisions have been requested.

Tenth: Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members

Members of the Editorial Board may publish their research in the journal; however, their authorship does not grant them any role in the editorial decision-making process concerning their own manuscripts.

When a manuscript is submitted by an Editorial Board member, it is assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors. The manuscript undergoes independent external peer review according to the same procedures applied to all other research articles.

Eleventh: Special Issues

Manuscripts published in special issues are subject to the same peer-review and editorial oversight procedures applied to regular issues.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the content published in special issues, including oversight of guest editors.

Manuscripts submitted by guest editors themselves must undergo an independent peer-review process in which the author does not participate in the editorial decision.

Twelfth: Non-Research Content

The journal clearly identifies the type of review applied to each category of published content. Research articles are subject to external scientific peer review, while certain non-research materials, such as book reviews, editorial materials, and translations, may be subject to editorial or appropriate scholarly review according to their nature.

The applicable review process is clearly indicated for the relevant type of content when necessary.

Thirteenth: Confidentiality

The journal treats all manuscripts submitted for peer review as confidential materials.

Reviewers are prohibited from:

Sharing the manuscript with anyone without authorization from the journal.
Using the manuscript’s content for personal or research purposes before publication.
Communicating directly with the authors about the manuscript without authorization from the journal.
Disclosing the identities of the authors or reviewers.
Retaining copies of the manuscript after completion of the review process in violation of the journal’s instructions.

Fourteenth: Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest, including professional, research, personal, or financial relationships that could affect the objectivity of the review.

The journal reserves the right to exclude or replace a reviewer if a significant conflict of interest is identified.

Fifteenth: Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers may not use generative artificial intelligence tools to prepare peer-review reports or upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript data to generative AI tools.

Limited use of technical assistance tools, such as language proofreading tools, may be permitted provided that such use does not disclose confidential manuscript content and that the reviewer remains fully responsible for the review report.

Sixteenth: Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they have a clear scientific or procedural basis for doing so. An appeal must be submitted in writing and provide a clear justification explaining the grounds for the appeal.

Appeals submitted solely because an author disagrees with a reviewer’s opinion will not be accepted.

The Editorial Board will consider appeals independently and may request an additional evaluation when necessary.

Seventeenth: Responsibility for the Final Decision

The relevant editor or Editorial Board bears responsibility for the final decision regarding publication, taking into consideration the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s scientific standards.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript merely because it has passed the initial screening or been sent for peer review.

Eighteenth: Documentation of the Peer-Review Process

The journal maintains records of the peer-review process through its electronic journal management system (OJS), including submission dates, review dates, decisions, and relevant correspondence, in accordance with the journal’s privacy and confidentiality policies.

The journal is committed to reviewing and updating its peer-review policy when necessary in accordance with international best practices in scholarly publishing.