Peer Review Process

Every submission to Al-Muhafidz goes through a structured review process designed to ensure academic quality, research integrity, and transparency. The process consists of nine stages, from submission to publication.

Stage 1: Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online system, following the [Author Guidelines]. The editorial office checks that the submission is complete, including the anonymized manuscript and the separate title page.

Stage 2: Desk Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor screens the manuscript for:

  • the level of plagiarism;
  • alignment with the journal’s scope;
  • language quality;
  • completeness of the article structure;
  • currency of references.

At this stage, the editor may reject the manuscript without external review or send it to peer review, with or without initial revisions. Authors are notified of the outcome within seven to fourteen days of submission.

Stage 3: Reviewer Selection
The handling editor selects two independent external reviewers according to the [Reviewer Selection] policy. Reviewers assess the manuscript on a double-blind basis, and neither the authors nor the reviewers learn each other’s identities.

Stage 4: Double-Blind Review
Each reviewer completes an independent assessment within three to four weeks of accepting the invitation, following the [Reviewer Guidelines]. Where a longer period is needed, it must be agreed with the handling editor. Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, scientific contribution, and the relevance of the article’s substance, and provide their recommendation.

Stage 5: Evaluation of Review Results
The handling editor reads both reports together with their own assessment.

  • If the reviewers’ recommendations are consistent, the editor proceeds to a decision.
  • If they diverge, the editor clarifies the points of disagreement with the reviewers before deciding. [Optional: If disagreement remains, the editor may invite a third reviewer. Confirm whether Al-Muhafidz applies this step.]

Stage 6: Decision
Based on the reviews and the editor’s assessment, the editor issues one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision;
  • Accept with minor revisions;
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions);
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the editor authorized under the [Decision Process]. Receiving two favorable reviews does not by itself guarantee acceptance.

Stage 7: Revision
When revisions are requested, authors respond to all reviewer and editor comments, indicate the changes made, and resubmit within two to four weeks. Revisions are limited to a maximum of three cycles, after which the revision process ends. If the manuscript still does not meet the journal’s standards, the editor makes the final decision, either accepted or rejected. The detailed revision procedure is described in [Revision Process].

Stage 8: Copyediting and Final Checks
Accepted manuscripts undergo technical editing, language correction, and a second plagiarism check, with a maximum similarity index of 25%. Authors verify their data before publication.

Stage 9: Publication and Post-Publication
Accepted articles are published with complete metadata, including title, abstract, authors, DOI, and license. Published articles are then submitted for indexing, deposited in the repository, and archived.

Integrity Concerns
If a reviewer, editor, or author suspects plagiarism, data falsification, or another breach of research integrity at any stage, the concern is handled under the [Publication Ethics] policy, and the process may be suspended until the concern is resolved.