Reviewers Frequently Asked Questions

Journal Reviewers' FAQ – Al Bahith Journal

1. What is the role of a reviewer in Al Bahith Journal?

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal by providing constructive and objective evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Their feedback helps authors improve their work and assists editors in making informed publication decisions.

2. What type of review process does Al Bahith Journal follow?

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure unbiased and fair evaluation.

3. What criteria should reviewers consider when evaluating a manuscript?

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

Originality and significance of the research
Clarity and coherence of arguments
Methodological soundness
Relevance to the journal’s scope
Proper referencing and citation

4. How long do reviewers have to complete a review?

Reviewers are typically given 2 to 4 weeks to complete their evaluation. If more time is needed, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible.

5. How should reviewers submit their feedback?

Reviewers should provide a structured report that includes:

General comments on the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses
Specific suggestions for improvement
Recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject)

6. What should a reviewer do if they suspect plagiarism or ethical issues?

If a reviewer identifies plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations, they should immediately report their concerns to the editorial team with supporting evidence.

7. Are reviewers acknowledged for their work?

Yes. Reviewers may receive a formal acknowledgment, and their contributions may be recognized in the journal’s annual report. However, review reports remain confidential.

8. Can a reviewer decline a review invitation?

Yes. If a reviewer feels they lack the expertise, have a conflict of interest, or cannot meet the deadline, they should decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.