Reviewer Guideline
Scientific Reviewer’s Guidelines
Dear Esteemed Reviewer,
Before accepting or declining to review a manuscript, please address the following:
-
Does the manuscript sent to you fall within your precise area of specialization?
-
Do you identify any conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript or its authors? If so, please communicate this in a note to the Editor-in-Chief.
-
Do you have sufficient time to complete the review? Please note that a rigorous and thorough evaluation requires adequate time to be completed successfully.
The Wahj Al-Ulom for Pure Sciences journal emphasizes the following considerations for reviewers:
-
The review report should provide a clear and well-supported analysis for the author, particularly highlighting sections that require modification.
-
In cases where the reviewer wishes certain comments to remain confidential and not be shared with the author, such remarks should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief.
-
If the reviewer wishes to consult another expert regarding the manuscript, they must inform the Editor-in-Chief before doing so.
-
If the reviewer determines that the manuscript contains plagiarism from another study—published or unpublished—they must notify the Editor-in-Chief before commencing the review process.
The review process for manuscripts in the Ma'rifah Journal for Human Sciences is conducted according to the following criteria:
-
Has the research topic been previously addressed?
-
Does the title accurately reflect the manuscript’s content?
-
Does the abstract clearly represent the essence and concept of the study?
-
Does the research require ethical approvals for publication?
-
Does the introduction clearly and precisely present the aim the author seeks to achieve?
-
Are the research hypotheses and objectives formulated with scientific precision?
-
Is the research methodology clear and sufficient to express the results and answer the research questions accurately and comprehensively?
-
Have the previous studies and research papers authored by the researcher, and cited in the manuscript, been adequately discussed?
-
Has the author compared the findings of previous studies with the results of their own study?
-
Is the language of the manuscript clear and precise?