Guidelines for the Peer Review and Evaluation of Scientific Research

Guidelines for the Peer Review and Evaluation of Scientific Research

Introduction

The Guidelines for the Peer Review and Evaluation of Scientific Research of the Derna University Journal for Humanities and Social Sciences have been developed as part of the Journal’s commitment to establishing rigorous standards of scholarly quality, promoting integrity and objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication, and ensuring that its review procedures are consistent with established practices in academic publishing.

The Guidelines aim to regulate the stages of manuscript receipt, screening, peer review, and evaluation; to define the evaluation criteria and decision-making mechanisms; and thereby to ensure fairness and transparency, safeguard the rights of authors and reviewers, and contribute to improving the quality of published research and the Journal’s scholarly output.

The Guidelines comprise the following stages:

Stage One: Receipt and Initial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Board shall conduct an initial screening to verify that:

  1. The subject of the manuscript falls within the Journal’s scope and disciplinary areas.
  2. The manuscript complies with the Journal’s approved formal and technical requirements.
  3. Authors’ information and the manuscript’s essential details are complete.
  4. The manuscript is formally sound and suitable for referral to peer review.
  5. A similarity check has been conducted using the approved software, provided that the overall similarity rate does not exceed 20%, with due consideration given to the nature of quotations, references, and specialized scholarly terminology.

Stage Decision

  • Requirements met: The manuscript proceeds to Stage Two.
  • Requirements not met: The manuscript is returned to the author for completion of the requirements before referral for peer review.
  • Similarity rate exceeds 20%: The manuscript is returned to the author for revision of the identified similarities, in accordance with the Journal’s policy, and shall not be referred for peer review until the approved threshold is met.

 

Stage Two: Editorial Assessment by the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board, or its designated representative, shall examine the manuscript with respect to:

  • The relevance of the topic to the Journal’s aims.
  • The clarity of the manuscript’s title.
  • The soundness of the manuscript’s overall structure.
  • The presence of a clearly defined research problem.
  • The preliminary soundness of the research methodology.
  • Compliance with the Journal’s instructions for manuscript preparation and publication.
  • The preliminary soundness of documentation and adherence to academic integrity.

This assessment does not constitute a scholarly peer review; rather, it is an initial editorial screening to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for referral to reviewers.

Stage Decision

  • Suitable for peer review: The manuscript proceeds to Stage Three.
  • Requires formal revisions: The manuscript is returned to the author.
  • Unsuitable for peer review: The Journal declines to proceed with the publication process.

Stage Three: Selection of Reviewers and Manuscript Referral

After passing the initial screening:

  1. The manuscript is referred to two reviewers specializing in its subject area.
  2. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer-review process.
  3. The Editorial Board selects reviewers on the basis of specialization and scholarly expertise, while ensuring the absence of any conflict of interest.
  4. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and independence, and must not use or disclose the manuscript’s content.

 

 

Stage Four: Scholarly Evaluation of the Manuscript

Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript according to the Journal’s twelve approved scholarly criteria:

  1. Quality of style and linguistic accuracy.
  2. Clarity of the research problem in terms of supporting evidence and scholarly documentation.
  3. Accuracy, feasibility, and alignment of the research objectives with the research problem.
  4. Accuracy in formulating hypotheses or research questions and their suitability to the research objectives.
  5. The significance of the research and the rationale for undertaking it.
  6. Adequacy of the literature review and its alignment with the research variables.
  7. Suitability of the research methodology and procedures.
  8. Evidence of the researcher’s scholarly voice and capacity for analysis and discussion.
  9. Consistency of the findings with the research objectives.
  10. Coherence of the recommendations and proposals with the research findings.
  11. Accuracy of documentation and adherence to academic integrity.
  12. Recency, diversity, and relevance of the references to the subject of the research.

The reviewer shall attach detailed comments concerning any scholarly, methodological, or linguistic revisions deemed necessary.

Stage Five: Calculation of the Evaluation Score

The final score assigned by each reviewer is calculated in accordance with the grading scale specified in the review form and converted into a percentage out of 100%.

A minimum evaluation score of 65% is required for the manuscript to qualify quantitatively for acceptance.

The numerical score does not replace substantive scholarly comments; the Editorial Board considers both the quantitative result and the content of the peer-review report.

 

Stage Six: Reviewer’s Overall Recommendation

Each reviewer shall select one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept without any revisions
    If the manuscript meets the scholarly and methodological requirements and contains no substantive concerns.
  2. Accept subject to minor revisions
    If the comments are limited and do not affect the core of the manuscript.
  3. Accept subject to major revisions
    If the manuscript is fundamentally publishable but requires substantial revision in its scholarly, methodological, or analytical aspects.
  4. Reject
    If the manuscript fails to meet the minimum scholarly requirements, or contains fundamental deficiencies that preclude its acceptance.

Stage Seven: Handling Reviewers’ Reports

Upon receipt of the peer-review reports, the Editorial Board shall examine the results and comments as follows:

  • Both reviewers recommend acceptance: The publication procedures are completed in accordance with the type of decision.
  • Both reviewers recommend revisions: The manuscript is returned to the author to address the reviewers’ comments.
  • A substantive discrepancy exists between the reviewers: The manuscript is referred to a third reviewer to provide an independent scholarly determination on the points of disagreement.

The final decision shall not be based solely on the percentage score, but rather on both the quantitative evaluation and the reviewer’s scholarly report.

Stage Eight: Review of Revisions

Where a decision requiring revisions is issued:

  1. The reviewer’s report, including the required comments, is sent to the author.
  2. The author is required to complete the revisions within the period specified by the Journal.
  3. The author submits the revised manuscript, preferably accompanied by a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
  4. The Editorial Board verifies that the revisions have been implemented.
  5. Where necessary, the manuscript is returned to the reviewer to verify the substantive revisions.

Stage Nine: Final Decision

Upon completion of the peer-review and revision process, the Editorial Board shall issue a final decision on the manuscript:

  • Acceptance for publication: The manuscript proceeds to the editing, production, and publication stage.
  • Request for further revisions: The manuscript is returned to the author in accordance with the Editorial Board’s assessment.
  • Rejection: The author is notified of the decision in accordance with the Journal’s approved procedures.