Review Policy & Process

REVIEW POLICY

  1. Peer Review Model

Tahreer Journal adopts a double‑blind peer review model. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review cycle. All files (manuscript, metadata, supplementary data) are anonymised before review.

  1. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must uphold the highest ethical standards:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content
  • Avoid using manuscript data for personal or professional benefit
  • Avoid discussing manuscript content without editor authorisation
  • Declare all conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, political, religious)
  • Declare if the manuscript overlaps with their own ongoing research
  • Declare any form of bias toward the manuscript
  • Avoid personal criticism of authors; critique only the work
  1. Confidentiality Policy
  • Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents at all stages.
  • Unauthorised sharing, discussion, or use of manuscript content is strictly prohibited.
  • Breach of confidentiality may result in permanent removal from the reviewer database.
  1. Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

COI includes:

  • Personal, academic, financial, or ideological relationships
  • Prior collaboration within 3 years
  • Supervisory or subordinate relationships
  • Competitive or adversarial positions: Failure to disclose COI may result in rejection, blacklisting, or institutional notification.
  1. Plagiarism & Ethical Misconduct Policy

Reviewers must report:

  • Plagiarism or replication of previous work
  • Fabricated, unrealistic, or fake results
  • Ethical violations involving human subjects (children, women, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor)

The journal uses Turnitin for similarity checking. Acceptable similarity thresholds:

  • Total similarity ≤ 19%
  • Single-source similarity ≤ 5%. Self-plagiarism and image/data plagiarism are treated as misconduct.
  1. Reviewer Conduct & Professionalism

Reviewers must:

  • Act punctually and submit reports on time
  • Inform the editor immediately in case of delays
  • Inform the editor if they lack subject expertise
  • Provide an objective, evidence-based evaluation
  1. Editorial Independence & Decision Authority
  • The final decision (accept/reject) rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief
  • Reviewers cannot challenge editorial decisions in any forum
  1. Appeal Policy

Authors may appeal decisions within 10 days with:

    • Detailed justification
    • Evidence or clarification
  • Response to reviewer comments: An independent reviewer evaluates the appeal. Editorial Board’s decision is final.

 

REVIEW PROCESS

Step 1: Submission & Initial Screening (Desk Review)

  • The manuscript is checked for scope, formatting, originality, and ethical compliance.
  • Desk review duration: 3 days (Week 07, days 1–3), run concurrently with reviewer assignment so both fit within the single Editorial Review & Proofreading week.
  • Manuscripts failing basic criteria are rejected without external review.

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment

  • At least two reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, and COI clearance.
  • Assignment duration: 4 days (Week 07, days 4–7), overlapping with the final days of the desk review so that Steps 1 and 2 are completed together within Week 07 of the publication calendar.
  • Reviewers must confirm subject expertise before accepting the task.

Step 3: Double-Blind Peer Review

Duration: 21 days (Weeks 08–10). National and international review stages run concurrently within this single 21-day window, not sequentially. Reviewers evaluate:

  • Originality
  • Methodology
  • Literature adequacy
  • Data validity
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity & organization
  • Contribution to the field: Reviewers submit comments using the prescribed form via email or OJS.

Step 4: Reviewer Recommendations

Possible outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject Editor may:
  • Seek a second opinion from another reviewer
  • Return the manuscript to the authors for revision

Step 5: Author Revision

Duration: 7 days (Week 11). Authors must:

  • Address all reviewer comments
  • Provide a point-by-point response
  • Submit revised manuscript and marked copy

Step 6: Re‑Review (If required)

Conducted concurrently with Step 5 (Week 11), by the original reviewers or editorial team, on an expedited basis. The revised manuscript may be sent back to reviewers for verification. If a manuscript requires extensive re-review that cannot be completed within Week 11, its publication is deferred to the following quarterly issue rather than delaying the current issue.

Step 7: Final Decision

Issued by the end of Week 11, immediately following revision verification (Step 5) and any expedited re-review (Step 6). Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on:

  • Reviewer reports
  • Revision quality
  • Ethical compliance Decision is final and cannot be challenged by reviewers.

Step 8: Finalisation & Publication (Week 12)

  • Final draft preparation
  • Metadata creation
  • DOI assignment
  • Online publication of the quarterly issue

Note on Overlapping Steps:

To keep the review process aligned with the quarterly publication calendar, certain steps below run concurrently rather than sequentially. The desk review and reviewer assignment (Steps 1–2) are both complete by Week 07. Author revision, re-review, and final decision (Steps 5–7) are all complete within Week 11, with re-review conducted on an expedited basis alongside revision verification. Manuscripts requiring more extensive re-review than this window allows are deferred to the following quarterly issue rather than delaying the current one.