- Submissions
- Focus and Scope
- Peer Review Process
- Reviewers
- Publication Ethics
- Author Guidelines
- Archiving
- Screening for Plagiarism Policy
- Abstracting and Indexing
- Author and Editing Fees
- Copyrights and Licensing
- Copyrights Notice
- Contact
Peer Review Process
An-Nahdah Al-‘Arabiyah applies a double-anonymous external peer-review process to original research articles. Each manuscript that passes editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the final editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor makes the final decision based on scholarly quality, reviewer reports, ethical considerations, and the journal’s editorial policies
An-Nahdah Al-'Arabiyah maintains additional policies to ensure that manuscript evaluation is fair, independent, confidential, and consistent with internationally recognized standards of research integrity.
Authors, reviewers, and editors are encouraged to consult the following policies:
-
Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy — procedures for identifying, reporting, and investigating suspected research or publication misconduct.
-
Conflict of Interest Policy — disclosure and management of interests that may affect editorial impartiality.
-
Complaints and Appeals Policy — procedures for submitting and reviewing complaints or appeals concerning editorial processes.
-
Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy — requirements for responsible AI use, confidentiality, and human accountability in manuscript evaluation.
-
Editorial Independence Policy — principles governing independent editorial decision-making and the handling of submissions involving editors or their close collaborators.
-
Publication Ethics and Editorial Responsibilities — responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.
All editorial decisions are made according to scholarly merit, reviewer assessments, ethical considerations, and the journal's established policies. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial judgment but do not replace the responsibility of the authorized editor to make the final decision.
