Peer Review Process

  • The peer review process
  • The peer review of articles is a cornerstone of the publication process, which improves the publishing quality at Ansaq journal. Peer review is designed to select valid research of significant impact.

    As a double blind peer-reviewed journal, we rely on expert comments of reviewers to ensure the quality of the papers we publish. Feedback from reviewers is conveyed to authors, which frequently results in manuscripts being revised by the author and refined in order to reach the highest publishing quality.

    Referring to our policy, each article is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

    Referees can either accept the article without any modification, accept it with minor modifications, accept it with substantial amendments, or reject the article.

    If the article requires further review, the revised version shall be sent to the referees for their feedback and recommendations in order come up with a final decision regarding the publication.

    Whilst the reviewers are selected by the editorial committee, the authors’ names are not revealed in any way to the reviewers. The blinding of reviews is intended to protect the reviewers and to allow them to provide critical and honest reviews.

  • The Editorial Committee’s Expectations During the Peer Review Process
  • By agreeing to review a paper, the reviewer makes a firm commitment to advise our journal on this article and to adhere to our policies and guidelines for the review of articles.

    The reviewer must be:

    • objective and must not have conflicts of interest that might compromise the objectivity or perceived value of the review

    • have good judgment and must be able to think critically and logically

    • able to write a constructive critique that is accurate, readable and helpful to both the editors the author

    • reliable and must have the time to do the task, and do it well, in the time frame allotted.

    The reviewer also provides guidance to the editorial committee with regard to the research. He/she is expected to support and encourage publication of high quality work while appropriately challenging flawed ones.

    Before agreeing to review a paper, the reviewer should consider her/his ability to meet these standards.

  • Do you have the expertise we are looking for?
  • The ideal reviewer is someone who is working in the same discipline as the subject of the paper. The reviewer is required to judge the quality of the research, analyze and assess the validity of the assumptions, and assess the significance of the work to the field.

    Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many criteria, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics.

  • Do you have the time to review the article within the time frame requested by us?
  • We are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and request that reviewers read and critique articles within a maximum of 14 days.

    It is unfair to both the author and the journal to agree to review a paper if you know you cannot review it rapidly. It is also unethical to give the paper only a cursory reading and then provide a superficial and careless review. In agreeing to review a paper, you are committing to provide the journal with a thorough and incisive review which requires time, reflection, and thought.

    If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

  • Ansaq journal needs your specialist expertise, not your editorial assistance
  • We rely on reviewers to evaluate the quality, importance, and novelty of the ideas presented in the manuscript. We frequently receive reviews that focus completely on minor editorial problems (typographical errors, misspellings) and do not comment on the ideas in the paper. Such reviews have limited value as they do not provide us with any information on the value and validity of the work and do not help us make an informed decision concerning publication.

    We highlight that accepted articles go through copyediting and typesetting prior to publication.

  • Writing the review report
  • The primary purpose of your review is to provide us the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable.

    A negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication.

  • How do you handle the papers?
  • Articles under review are confidential documents, and should be treated as such. They contain unpublished information and ideas that must be kept confidential. The article or its contents must not be shared with others by any means. Moreover, the information in the article must not be used or cited in the reviewer’s own publications.

  • Ethical Concerns May Arise During a Review
  • Sometimes as a reviewer, you may discover more serious ethical breaches. You may recognize much or all of the paper, because it has been published previously by the same author(s). Alternatively, you may find text or ideas which have been copied without permission or appropriate attribution from the works of others.

    In the case of suspected duplicative publication or plagiarism, you should obtain and carefully examine copies of the original documents to confirm your initial impression. You should then contact us in confidence to discuss the problem.

    QU Press follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the COPE Flowcharts for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct, available through the following link : https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts