Peer Review Process

1. Submission and Initial File Preparation

Authors must prepare the submission in accordance with the official al-Kalim Article Template and the journal's Author Guidelines.

For double-blind review, authors must prepare:

• a separate title page containing the names of all authors, affiliations, contact details, ORCID information where available, acknowledgments, and identifying funding information; and
• a fully anonymized manuscript for reviewers.

The blinded manuscript must not contain author names, affiliations, identifying acknowledgments, or document metadata that could reveal the identity of the author(s). File names, tables, figures, and supplementary files should also be checked for identifying information.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The initial screening may consider whether:

• the manuscript falls within the journal's focus and scope;
• the manuscript follows the official template and technical requirements;
• the title, abstract, keywords, main text, declarations, and references are complete;
• the manuscript meets the required length and reference coverage;
• the manuscript has been properly anonymized for double-blind review;
• academic language, citation style, transliteration, tables, and figures meet journal requirements;
• the similarity level complies with the journal policy; and
• the manuscript demonstrates sufficient scholarly relevance and contribution to justify external review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission requirements may be returned to the author for technical correction before peer review or may be declined at the editorial screening stage.

3. Assignment to Reviewers

During peer review:

• reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript;
• reviewers should evaluate the manuscript objectively and confidentially;
• review comments should focus on scholarly quality, methodological rigor, clarity, evidence, originality, and contribution; and
• reviewers should not attempt to identify or contact the author(s).

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript in relation to the standards reflected in the journal template, including the following:

4.1 Title and Abstract

• clarity, specificity, and informativeness of the title;
• accuracy and completeness of the abstract;
• alignment of the abstract with Background, Purpose, Method, Results, and Conclusion; and
• appropriateness of the keywords.

4.2 Introduction

• clarity of the research problem and context;
• significance and scholarly relevance of the topic;
• quality of the state-of-the-art review and critical synthesis;
• explicit identification of the research gap;
• novelty and originality of the study;
• clarity of research questions or hypotheses where applicable;
• clarity of objectives; and
• theoretical and practical contributions.

4.3 Method

• appropriateness of the research design or analytical approach;
• adequacy of participants, sampling, data sources, or primary materials;
• clarity of instruments or materials;
• transparency of data collection procedures;
• appropriateness and rigor of data analysis;
• validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or other quality-assurance procedures; and
• ethical considerations where human participants are involved.

4.4 Findings and Discussion

• whether the findings directly address the research questions;
• adequacy and transparency of supporting evidence;
• quality of interpretation;
• connection of findings to theory or relevant concepts;
• critical comparison with previous studies; and
• clarity of the scholarly contribution or implication.

4.5 Conclusion

• whether the research objectives or questions are directly answered;
• whether the main findings are synthesized appropriately;
• whether contributions and implications are clearly stated;
• whether limitations are acknowledged proportionally; and
• whether future research directions logically follow from the findings.

4.6 References, Language, and Technical Quality

• adequacy and relevance of the reference base;
• priority given to recent scholarship while retaining necessary foundational sources;
• consistency with APA 7th Edition where applicable;
• accuracy of Arabic script and transliteration;
• clarity and quality of tables and figures; and
• overall academic language and presentation.

5. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports, the editor makes an editorial decision. Depending on the evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of the following outcomes:

6. Revision by Authors

When revision is requested, authors should respond carefully to the editorial and reviewer comments.

The revised submission should normally include:

• a revised manuscript;
• a clear point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments; and
• an explanation of any recommendation that was not followed, supported by an appropriate scholarly justification.

Authors should ensure that revisions do not compromise the anonymization of the manuscript while the article remains under double-blind review.

7. Re-Review

Where necessary, a revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewer(s) to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and whether the manuscript now meets the journal's scholarly standards.

8. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only after the editor is satisfied that the article has adequately addressed relevant reviewer comments and meets the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, and technical requirements.

Following acceptance, author-identifying information can be restored for publication, and the article proceeds to editorial preparation and production.

9. Copyediting and Production

After acceptance, the manuscript may undergo copyediting, formatting, metadata checking, and other production procedures necessary for publication.

At the proof stage, changes should be limited primarily to factual and typographical corrections. Substantial revisions should be avoided after acceptance.

10. Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other materials associated with peer review must be treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for personal or scholarly advantage without appropriate permission.

11. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments;
• evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise;
• maintain confidentiality;
• avoid personal criticism of authors;
• identify relevant scholarly issues or important literature where appropriate; and
• disclose any conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the review.

12. Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors are expected to:

• submit original work;
• provide accurate data and scholarly references;
• respond professionally to editorial and reviewer comments;
• revise the manuscript carefully when requested;
• avoid attempts to identify or contact anonymous reviewers; and
• inform the editor promptly if a significant error is discovered in the manuscript.

13. Review Timeline

14. Peer Review Flow