Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer review assists the Editorial Board of Al-Fateh Journal for Educational and Psychological Research in making fair and scientifically grounded editorial decisions. Reviewers’ comments also help authors improve the quality, clarity, and methodological soundness of their manuscripts.

When evaluating manuscripts, reviewers must comply with the journal’s approved peer-review policy and evaluation form and observe the following principles:

First: Academic Competence

  1. Reviewers should accept a manuscript for evaluation only when its subject falls within their area of specialization and academic expertise.
  2. Reviewers should decline the assignment when the manuscript falls outside their field or when they are unable to conduct a sufficiently rigorous scientific assessment.
  3. Reviewers should inform the Editorial Board when an additional specialist opinion is required for an aspect beyond their expertise.
  4. Reviewers must not transfer the manuscript to another person or involve another individual in its evaluation without prior approval from the Editorial Board.

Second: Timeliness

  1. Reviewers must complete their reports within the period specified by the journal.
  2. They should accept or decline a review invitation within the stated timeframe to avoid delaying the editorial process.
  3. When a reviewer cannot complete the evaluation on time, they must promptly inform the Editorial Board and indicate whether they are requesting an extension or declining the assignment.
  4. Reviewers must not retain a manuscript without completing the review or communicating with the Editorial Board regarding the delay.

Third: Confidentiality

  1. Manuscripts sent for peer review must be treated as confidential and unpublished documents.
  2. Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript, discuss its contents, or share its files with any unauthorized person.
  3. The manuscript’s ideas, data, findings, or research instruments must not be used for personal, academic, or competitive benefit before publication.
  4. Manuscript files must be securely deleted or destroyed after completion of the review unless the journal requests that they be retained for a specified period.
  5. The obligation of confidentiality continues after the review has been completed, the manuscript has been rejected, or the review invitation has been withdrawn.

Fourth: Objectivity and Professional Conduct

  1. The evaluation must be based on the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, accuracy of analysis, and clarity of findings.
  2. The review must not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, gender, religion, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, social background, or intellectual or political views.
  3. Review comments must be clear, specific, constructive, and supported by scientific reasoning.
  4. Reviewers must avoid personal, offensive, sarcastic, or otherwise unprofessional language.
  5. The report should distinguish between substantial concerns that affect the manuscript’s reliability and recommendations that are editorial, presentational, or intended for improvement.
  6. Reviewers must not recommend acceptance or rejection solely on the basis of a general impression without providing clear scientific reasons.

Fifth: Content of the Review Report

The review report should assess the following aspects, as appropriate to the nature of the manuscript:

  1. The manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope.
  2. The originality and scientific value of the study.
  3. The clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, or hypotheses.
  4. The appropriateness of the methodology, procedures, sample, and research instruments.
  5. The soundness of the analysis and accuracy of the presentation of findings.
  6. The relationship between the discussion, the findings, and the relevant scholarly literature.
  7. The validity of the conclusions and recommendations and whether they remain within the limits supported by the findings.
  8. The quality of the language, organization, and logical flow of ideas.
  9. The accuracy and relevance of the citations and references.
  10. Compliance with research ethics and the journal’s guidelines.

The reviewer should conclude the report with a clear recommendation based on the options provided in the journal’s evaluation form and explain the scientific reasons supporting that recommendation.

Sixth: Verification of Sources and Research Integrity

  1. Reviewers should alert the Editorial Board to important references omitted by the authors when those references are directly relevant and necessary to the study.
  2. Reviewers must not require authors to cite their own work or the work of others unless those references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.
  3. The Editorial Board must be informed when plagiarism, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, or manipulation of data, images, or findings is suspected.
  4. Reviewers should identify, where possible, published works that appear to have substantial similarities with the manuscript under review.
  5. Reviewers are not responsible for conducting a final investigation into suspected misconduct. Their role is to communicate their concerns and any available evidence to the Editorial Board for appropriate action.

Seventh: Conflicts of Interest

  1. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting the assignment or immediately upon becoming aware of it.
  2. Conflicts of interest may include personal, professional, academic, financial, or institutional relationships that could affect the impartiality of the evaluation.
  3. Reviewers should decline the assignment when there has been recent research collaboration, a direct supervisory relationship, a personal or professional dispute, or an interest connected to the manuscript’s findings.
  4. When a conflict of interest is identified after the review has begun, the reviewer must suspend the evaluation and inform the Editorial Board so that the appropriate action may be determined.
  5. Reviewers must not communicate directly with the authors regarding the manuscript. All communication must be conducted through the Editorial Board.

Eighth: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

  1. Reviewers must not upload an unpublished manuscript, its data, images, or any part of it to artificial intelligence tools or external platforms when doing so may compromise confidentiality or authors’ rights.
  2. Artificial intelligence tools must not be used as a substitute for the reviewer’s own scholarly evaluation.
  3. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, content, and recommendation contained in their reports.
  4. Any use of an automated tool in preparing a review report must be disclosed to the Editorial Board when permitted under the journal’s policy.

Ninth: Anonymity of Reviewer Identity and Reports

  1. Reviewers must comply with the peer-review model adopted by the journal and preserve the confidentiality of their identity whenever required by that model.
  2. The report sent to the authors must not include the reviewer’s name, signature, institutional affiliation, or any other identifying information.
  3. Reviewers should ensure that hidden identifying metadata has been removed from the review-report file before uploading it to the journal’s system.
  4. Reviewers must not disclose that they reviewed the manuscript or reveal the editorial decision concerning it without formal permission from the journal.

Tenth: Limits of the Reviewer’s Role

Reviewers provide scholarly recommendations to the Editorial Board and do not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board after consideration of the reviewers’ reports and all scientific and ethical aspects associated with the manuscript.