An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities)

Reviewers Guildlines

Peer review

General Policy

ANUJR-B supports peer review because it enables research to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts in the same academic field as the authors. Peer review improves manuscripts and helps the editor assess a work’s suitability for publication.

The review process

ANUJR-B  adopts a double-blind review process, fully supervised and assessed by the editorial board. The editorial board is responsible for the initial evaluation before manuscripts are sent for external review. This initial assessment includes:

• Technical evaluation: ensuring the presence of all required sections (e.g., structured abstract, references in Roman letters, APA citation style), and overall readability and language quality.

• Quality assessment: considering the novelty, originality, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s readership.

• Ethical considerations: including plagiarism screening.

Only manuscripts likely to meet the journal’s editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those deemed unsuitable or of insufficient interest may be desk rejected without external review, sometimes based on advice from subject specialists.

Manuscripts passing the initial stage are sent to at least two independent blind reviewers. Reviewers are asked to follow the journal’s competing  interest’s disclosure policy.

Reviewers are expected to recommend a course of action, bearing in mind that other reviewers may provide different perspectives. The most useful reports clearly outline arguments both for and against publication, giving the editors a solid basis for decision-making.

Editorial decisions are not based on “counting votes.” Instead, the editorial board evaluates the strength of arguments raised by reviewers and authors, while considering the journal’s broader responsibilities to readers and the scholarly community.

In cases of disagreement among reviewers or between reviewers and authors, the board may seek further advice. Reviewers may be asked to provide follow-up comments, though the board aims to minimize prolonged disputes.

When reviewers accept an invitation to review, this is considered a commitment to assess subsequent revisions. However, resubmissions will not be returned to reviewers if authors fail to address key criticisms.

The editorial board takes reviewer criticisms seriously, especially technical concerns. If a single reviewer strongly opposes publication, the editors may consult others to determine whether the standard applied was unreasonably high. Additional reviewers may be invited in special cases.

If authors disagree with editorial or referee comments, they may submit a detailed scientific appeal, which is examined by the editorial board and referees. Respectful communication is required at all stages; offensive language from any party will not be tolerated.

Selecting peer reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. Selection is based on expertise, reputation, recommendations, and past reviewing experience.The board avoids reviewers known to be slow, careless, or lacking justification for their assessments.

Potential reviewers are contacted before manuscripts are sent, and all communications must be treated as confidential.

Writing the review

The primary purpose of the review is to provide editors with the information necessary for a decision. A review should also guide authors on how to strengthen their manuscript. Negative reviews should explain weaknesses so that authors understand the basis of rejection.

The ideal review evaluates:

1. Originality: Does the manuscript present new and relevant insights?
2. Relationship to Literature: Does it demonstrate adequate engagement with key scholarship?
3. Methodology: Are theories, concepts, and methods sound and appropriate?
4. Results: Are findings presented clearly and analyzed effectively?
5. Implications: Are implications for theory, practice, and/or society identified?
6. Quality of Communication: Is the argument clearly and professionally expressed?

Review outcomes may include:

• Accept submission : (with or without editorial revisions)
• Invite author revision: (addressing concerns before a final decision)
• Reject: (after substantial improvements)
• Reject outright: (due to lack of novelty, specialist scope only, or major technical/interpretational flaws)

Timing of reviews

ANUJR-B is committed to timely editorial decisions. Reviewers are given 30 days to submit reports, with reminders sent one week before the deadline. If referees provide conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer is consulted.

Authors typically submit revisions within 15 days, which are re-evaluated by the same referees. The initial decision is usually made within one months of submission, and the final decision within one month. The entire review process is conducted online; paper or email submissions are not accepted.

Anonymity

Reviewer identities remain confidential. Reviewers should not reveal their identity to authors without editor approval. Authors are discouraged from attempting to identify reviewers, and the journal will neither confirm nor deny speculation regarding identities.

Editing reviewers’ reports

The journal does not suppress reviewer reports. However, the editorial team may edit reports to remove offensive language, confidential details, or unclear expressions. Reviewers are encouraged to state their opinions directly but respectfully.

Ethics and security

Editors may seek advice not only on technical matters but also on ethical issues, data access, or potential societal and security implications of publication.

Confidential discussions between authors, editors, and reviewers must remain private unless all parties consent or exceptional circumstances apply.

Editors, editorial board members, and reviewers must withdraw from evaluating manuscripts if conflicts of interest prevent unbiased decisions.