The academic publishing policy at Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan stipulates that research submitted for publication in Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan Journal for Human and Social Studies must undergo a peer review process in a bid to evaluate the scholarly work submitted for publication, carried out by a researcher with expertise and competence in the fields of human and social studies; in order to ensure the quality and credibility of the works submitted for publication in the relevant academic field, and to demonstrate the extent of academic integrity therein, as follows:
Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan Journal for Human and Social Studies relies on anonymity (of both reviewers and authors) for reviewing research, under the supervision of the journal's editorial board.
The editorial board supervises two research evaluations:
Initial Evaluation
The initial evaluation of the research includes:
• Research quality.
• Technical aspects.
• Research language.
• Required research sections.
• Ethical considerations: The research is submitted to a program to check the percentage of plagiarism, provided that the percentage thereof does not exceed 30%, before sending the research for reviewing. If the percentage exceeds the permissible limit, a written letter is sent to the researcher with this percentage, in order to work on changing it, unless it is very high. In that case, a letter of apology is sent to the researcher rejecting publishing his research.
• Research that does not meet the journal's standards will be rejected, and this rejection will take place before it is subject to external peer review.
2. External Evaluation
Research that meets the journal's peer review standards will be sent to two expert referees, who will be asked to:
• Submit a detailed report on the research and its results by filling out two forms on the journal's official website.
• A reviewing report form to be sent to the researcher to comment thereon and carry out any required modifications.
• A form containing the reviewer’s bank details and complete information about him, so that the university can disburse the financial wage of (60) Jordanian dinars or its equivalent in US dollars as in return for reviewing.
The reviewer must:
o Notify the journal of his consent to review the submitted work for publication.
o Notify the journal of his refusal to review the submitted work for publication if his specialization is incompatible, or if a conflict of interest arises due to personal, professional, or other relationships with the researcher(s).
o Complete the reviewing process within a maximum period of two weeks, and send a detailed report on the work submitted to him, including the final result, alongside with a form prepared for this purpose on the official website of the journal, filled with the specific requirements, so that it can be sent to the researcher/researchers; for commenting on it, and carrying out the required amendments.
o Adhere to confidentiality standards related to the reviewing process by veiling any information related to the submitted work, whether this information relates to the researcher's name or the research title.
o Adhere to objective reviewing standards, complete neutrality during the reviewing process, and refrain from insulting or defaming the researcher, regardless of the reviewer's opinion on the research academic level.
o Explain the reason for rejecting the research, or the requirements for modifications, be they major or minor, by explaining their validity.
o Disclose any points of overlap with other research works, whether partial or complete, together with the reasons for rejection if the work is plagiarized, or for any other reason that necessitates such rejection.
o Send bank statements and complete information about him, in order to provide a financial wage of (60) Jordanian dinars or its equivalent in US dollars in return for reviewing.
The journal relies on specific criteria for selecting reviewers, as follows:
• The reviewer's experience as well as academic and scientific reputation.
• The reviewer's ability to provide specific and justified recommendations.
• The journal's editorial board avoids selecting reviewers who routinely delay their responses to research papers after reviewing them, those who seem heedless, or those who do not provide convincing reasons for their recommendations, whether positive or negative.
• Contacting reviewers involves sending the title and abstract of the research. Then, it is sent to them in full after they agree to review it.
• Reviewers should keep in mind that this correspondence is confidential and should be treated accordingly.
• The journal’s Editorial Board is committed to ensuring a diverse selection of reviewers by way of maintaining a database thereof, known for their impartiality and high scientific knowledge.
• The journal is committed to not sending research to unqualified reviewers, particularly those who prove to the journal that they are unable to provide a reason for rejection or explanation for acceptance.
The reviewer sends the review report to the editorial board after filling the form, based on the following review criteria:
• The title of the research and its consistency with the content.
• The importance and originality of the research.
• The adequacy and comprehensiveness of the research.
• The soundness of the methodology and its compatibility with the research topic, as well as the consistency of its procedures and tools.
• The clarity of the objectives, the research's contribution to addressing societal issues, and the applicability of its findings.
• The accuracy of the research language, writing style, and presentation.
• The clarity of the statistical analysis tools used and their suitability for the research topic and data (if any).
• The research results and their consistency with the premises, and their contribution to the growth and exchange of knowledge.
• The comprehensiveness, timeliness, and adequacy of the sources, references, and tools included in the text.
• The accuracy of the citation in the text (scientific integrity).
• In a purely additive sense, the reviewer can add suggestions that may help improve the quality of the research and make recommendations to the researcher for modifications.
Based on the previous reviewing criteria, the reviewer provides the outcome of the reviewing process by selecting one of the following:
1. Suitable for publication as it is.
2. Suitable for publication after minor modifications.
3. Suitable for publication after major modifications.
4. Unsuitable for publication.
• The reviewer must complete the reviewing process within a maximum period of two weeks and send a detailed report on the work submitted to him, including the final results, alongside with a form prepared for this purpose on the official website of the journal, filled with the specific requirements, so that it can be sent to the researcher/researchers; for commenting on it, and carrying out the required amendments.
• If the reviewer requests an extension of the review period, the editorial board must be notified.
• If the reviewer delays reviewing the submitted research work beyond the specified time, the editorial board shall email him a reminder. If they do not receive a response, they will forward it to an alternative reviewer.
• If the two reviewers disagree on the outcome of their review, the editorial board shall ask a third reviewer to make the final decision, which means adding additional time to the reviewing period.
The revised version is returned to the same reviewers for a second review to ensure that the researcher has made the required changes.
The journal does not disclose the identities of the reviewers to their peers or to researchers, and asks the reviewers to do so, in order to maintain academic integrity and objective transparency throughout the process of reviewing.