For Reviewers

Instructions for Reviewers

Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences relies on a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of the research it publishes. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific standards of the journal and supporting fair, objective, timely, and constructive editorial decision-making.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief in evaluating the scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers’ comments and recommendations also assist authors in improving the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their manuscripts.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript or its contents for personal, professional, educational, or research purposes.

Information obtained through the peer-review process must remain confidential and must not be disclosed to any third party without prior authorization from the journal.

Promptness

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review invitations.

Reviewers who consider themselves unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, who lack the necessary expertise, or who anticipate being unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible and decline the invitation.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, professionally, and without bias. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic merit and provide constructive, evidence-based, and well-reasoned comments.

Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Comments should focus on improving the quality, clarity, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and overall scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors where appropriate.

Reviewers should also notify the Editor of any substantial similarity, overlap, plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, image manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns identified during the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an objective and impartial evaluation.

Reviewers should decline the review invitation if they have:

  • A personal relationship with any of the authors.
  • A current or recent professional collaboration with any of the authors.
  • A financial interest related to the manuscript.
  • A competing academic or professional interest.
  • Any other circumstance that may compromise their independence, impartiality, or objectivity.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The peer-review process must remain human-led, and full responsibility for the review report rests solely with the invited reviewer.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary materials, or any confidential information from submitted manuscripts into generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems or external AI tools, as doing so may violate confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and data protection requirements.

AI tools may be used only for limited language-editing or writing-assistance purposes where permitted by the journal's policies and provided that no confidential manuscript content is disclosed.

Any permitted use of AI tools in preparing review comments should be disclosed to the journal.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the peer-review process.
  • Provide objective, constructive, timely, and evidence-based reviews.
  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly, consistently, and without discrimination.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest promptly.
  • Report suspected ethical concerns, research misconduct, plagiarism, or other publication ethics issues to the Editor.
  • Refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, or professional advantage.

Ethical Standards and Guidance

The journal follows the ethical principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for additional guidance.