Peer -Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly significance of all published research. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process

1. Manuscript Submission 

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors meet the journal’s authorship criteria and have reviewed and approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences Editorial Office checks the manuscript’s style, structure, and formatting against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ensure that all required sections and submission requirements have been met. At this stage, the scientific quality of the manuscript is not evaluated.

3. Editorial Evaluation

  • The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an Editorial Board Member with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area.
  • The assigned editor conducts a preliminary scientific assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope and demonstrates sufficient originality, quality, scholarly contribution, and academic integrity.
  • As part of this evaluation, the assigned Editorial Board Member reviews the manuscript and its similarity report generated by plagiarism detection software to assess originality and compliance with academic integrity standards.
  • Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, demonstrate insufficient originality or scholarly contribution, fail to meet quality standards, or raise concerns regarding academic integrity may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

  • For manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial evaluation stage, the assigned Editorial Board Member recommends qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript.
  • The Editorial Office sends review invitations through the journal’s electronic system. Invited reviewers may accept or decline the invitation based on their expertise and availability. Reviewers who decline the invitation may, where appropriate, recommend alternative qualified reviewers.
    Additional invitations may be issued when necessary until at least two reviewers accept the invitation to review the manuscript.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Once at least two reviewers accept the invitation, the manuscript is sent for evaluation under the journal’s double-blind peer-review process, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide detailed comments and recommendations through the journal’s review form. The evaluation focuses on several aspects, including:

  • Clarity and appropriateness of the title.
  • Quality and completeness of the abstract.
  • Relevance and significance of the research objectives.
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology.
  • Quality and presentation of the results and conclusions.
  • Adequacy of the study sample, where applicable.
  • Appropriateness of the statistical analyses, where applicable.
  • Organization, clarity, and academic quality of the manuscript.
  • Quality, relevance, and currency of references and citations.
  • Originality, scholarly contribution, and compliance with academic integrity standards.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

The reviewers’ reports and recommendations are submitted through the journal’s electronic system and are considered during the editorial decision-making process.

6. Evaluation of Review Reports

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ reports, the assigned Editorial Board Member carefully evaluates all comments and recommendations as part of the editorial decision-making process.
Where the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially or additional expert opinion is required, the manuscript may be referred to an additional reviewer for further evaluation.

7. Revision and Resubmission

  • When revisions are required, the assigned Editorial Board Member communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal’s electronic system, together with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.
  • Authors are expected to carefully address all comments and recommendations and submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation cannot be implemented, authors should provide a clear and justified explanation.
  • Upon resubmission, the revised manuscript and the authors’ response letter are normally returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation to determine whether the comments and recommendations have been adequately addressed.

8. Editorial Assessment of Revised Manuscripts

  • Following the reviewers’ evaluation of the revised manuscript, the assigned Editorial Board Member assesses the reviewers’ reports, the revised manuscript, and the authors’ response letter to determine whether the reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed.
  • Where necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for further revision or subjected to an additional round of peer review. Manuscripts that satisfactorily address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments proceed to the final decision stage.

9. Final Decision

  • Based on the reviewers’ reports, the revised manuscript, and the authors’ responses, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript.
  • Authors are notified of the final decision through the journal’s electronic system and official correspondence. For accepted manuscripts, an acceptance letter is issued, and authors may be required to complete the necessary publication formalities before the manuscript proceeds to the production stage.

10. Production

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo the production process, which includes copyediting, proofreading, formatting, and typesetting to ensure accuracy, consistency, and compliance with the journal’s publishing standards.
  • Authors contacted during this stage to review proofs and approve any necessary corrections before publication.

11. Online Publication

Upon completion of the production process, accepted articles are published on the journal’s website and assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to ensure permanent identification, accessibility, and citation.