Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers play a vital role in the publishing process at Al-Ibdaa Academic Publishing House.
Their evaluations ensure that every submitted manuscript meets the highest academic, ethical, and scientific standards. By offering their expertise, reviewers help authors refine their work, enhance research quality, and support fair and informed editorial decisions.

This section provides reviewers with clear guidance, expectations, and ethical standards to help them perform their responsibilities effectively and with confidence.

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo evaluation by qualified experts — including volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board, and specialists recommended by the editor at the submission stage. Reviewers are responsible for assessing the scholarly quality, originality, and clarity of the manuscript, and for providing a recommendation to the external editor regarding its suitability for publication.
These recommendations may include: acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection based on academic merit and ethical standards.

We ask invited reviewers to:

  • Respond to review invitations promptly after checking the manuscript title and abstract.

  • If unable to review, recommend suitable alternative reviewers.

  • If additional time is needed to prepare a thorough evaluation, request a deadline extension as early as possible.

Before accepting or declining a review invitation, ask yourself the following:

Q1) Is the manuscript within your field of expertise?
Accept the assignment only if you can provide a thorough, informed, and high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have any conflict of interest?
If so, inform the editor immediately when responding to the invitation.

Q3) Do you have sufficient time?
Peer review can be demanding. Make sure you are able to complete the evaluation within the requested deadline before committing.

How to Conduct a Peer Review

A reviewer’s report should provide a detailed and constructive assessment of the manuscript—not just a few short remarks. Although our journals do not enforce a strict reporting template, reviewers may find the following structure helpful:

We encourage reviewers to support authors in strengthening their manuscripts. Review reports should provide constructive, detailed feedback—especially when revisions are advised. If there are comments that a reviewer prefers not to share with the authors, these may be included in the confidential section for the editor-in-chief.
Although expectations differ across academic fields, reviewers should generally evaluate the following key aspects:

  • Are the research questions clearly defined and academically sound?

  • Is the sample size adequate to support meaningful conclusions?

  • Has the study obtained the required ethical approval or participant consent, and was the research conducted ethically?

  • Are the chosen methods and study design suitable for addressing the research questions?

  • Do the experiments include proper and sufficient controls?

  • Is the methodology described with enough detail—equipment, materials, and procedures—for the study to be reproducible?

  • Are the statistical analyses appropriate, correctly applied, and properly reported?

  • Are the figures and tables clear, accurate, and representative of the findings?

  • Has relevant prior work—by the authors and other researchers—been appropriately discussed and compared with the current study?

  • Are all citations appropriate, avoiding unsupported claims or excessive self-citation?

  • Do the findings logically support the conclusions drawn by the authors?

  • Are the study’s limitations clearly acknowledged?

  • Does the abstract accurately reflect the research and results without exaggeration or bias?

  • Is the manuscript written in clear, understandable language?

To ensure authors receive timely feedback, reviewers are expected to submit their reports through the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed-upon deadline. If a reviewer anticipates any difficulty meeting the deadline, they should notify the journal as soon as possible so that a revised timeline can be arranged.

Reviewers are encouraged to base their assessments on an objective evaluation of the scientific content—examining elements such as the soundness of the methodology, the reliability of the results, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence. Reviewers may also comment on the novelty of the study and its potential contribution to the field.

At the conclusion of the review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accepted
    The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires small adjustments or clarifications that do not affect the overall structure or conclusions.
  • Major Revision
    Significant changes are needed—such as methodological clarification, additional data, or substantial rewriting—before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Resubmit for Review
    The revised manuscript will require a full reevaluation after major modifications have been completed.
  • Reject
    The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to fundamental flaws, insufficient originality, or failure to meet academic standards.
  • Unable to Review
    The reviewer declines due to conflict of interest, lack of expertise, or time constraints.

Review Reports

We have outlined everal general recommendations to guide you in preparing a thorough and constructive review report.

To begin, please take the following points into consideration:

  • Carefully read the entire manuscript along with any supplementary materials. Pay close attention to the figures, tables, datasets, and methods used.

  • Your review should provide a critical evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, as well as of specific sections and the key concepts presented.

  • Make sure your comments are sufficiently detailed so the authors can clearly understand and address the issues you identify.

  • Reviewers should not suggest citations to their own work, work by close colleagues, or work from the submitting journal unless such references are genuinely necessary to improve the manuscript’s scientific quality.

  • Avoid recommending unnecessary self-citations, excessive citations to another author (honorary citations), or citations to the journal itself solely to increase citation counts. References may be suggested when they clearly strengthen the manuscript.

  • Maintain a professional, objective, and constructive tone throughout your report. Feedback should help the authors improve their work. Disrespectful or inappropriate comments will not be accepted.

Review reports should contain the following:

  • Brief Summary: Provide a short paragraph summarizing the aim of the manuscript, its key contributions, and its primary strengths.

  • General Concept Comments:

    • For Research Manuscripts: Identify weaknesses in the study design, issues affecting the testability of the hypothesis, gaps in methodology, missing controls, or other scientific limitations.

    • For Review Articles: Comment on how comprehensively the topic is covered, the relevance and clarity of the selected theme, the knowledge gap identified, and whether the references are appropriate and up-to-date.

  • Specific Comments: Offer detailed observations referring to exact line numbers, figures, or tables to highlight unclear statements, errors, or inconsistencies. These comments should focus on scientific content. Issues related to spelling, formatting, or language quality can be corrected later by our editorial staff and do not need to be emphasized.

  • Clarity and Relevance: Is the manuscript well-written, clearly organized, and relevant to its academic field?

  • Quality of References: Are the cited sources recent (preferably within the last five years) and appropriate? Does the manuscript avoid excessive self-citation?

  • Scientific Soundness: Is the study scientifically robust, and is the experimental or analytical design suitable for testing the stated hypothesis?

  • Reproducibility: Are the methods described in enough detail for another researcher to replicate the study’s results?

  • Figures and Tables: Are the figures, tables, images, or schemes appropriate and accurately representing the data? Are they easy to interpret? Is the data consistently and correctly analyzed, including any statistical tests or information obtained from databases?

  • Conclusions: Do the conclusions logically follow from the presented results and arguments?

  • Ethics and Data Availability: Review the ethics statement and data availability declaration to ensure they are complete, transparent, and meet standard requirements.

General questions to help guide your review report for review manuscripts:

  • Clarity and Scope: Is the review article well-written, comprehensive, and relevant to the field? Does it clearly identify an existing knowledge gap?

  • Novelty and Timeliness: Has a similar review been published recently? If so, does this manuscript still offer meaningful value or new perspectives for the scientific community?

  • Quality of References: Are most citations recent (preferably within the last five years) and appropriate to the topic? Are any important references missing? Does the paper avoid unnecessary self-citations?

  • Strength of Arguments: Are the statements, interpretations, and conclusions logically presented and supported by the cited literature?

  • Visual Elements: Are the figures, tables, images, or schemes appropriate and informative? Do they clearly present the information and remain easy to understand?

The content of your review report will be evaluated by an Editor to ensure it is scientifically sound and genuinely helpful in strengthening the manuscript. The overall assessment of your review will also be used as part of the evaluation process for potential advancement of Reviewer Board Members, Volunteer Reviewers, and regular Reviewers.