Reviewer Guidelines

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist the Editorial Board of Al-Fath Journal for Educational and Psychological Research in making appropriate editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts, including acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewers’ scientific and methodological comments also help authors improve and develop the quality of their manuscripts.
The Editorial Board shall provide reviewers with the necessary information and guidelines related to the journal’s scope, review criteria, author guidelines, and the required level of scientific and methodological accuracy for manuscripts accepted for publication. The journal is also committed to maintaining the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities and shall not disclose them except with the reviewers’ explicit consent, or where required by applicable laws, official regulations, or publication ethics.

Promptness

A reviewer invited to evaluate a manuscript should inform the Editorial Board within the specified period if they are unable to complete the review, if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise, or if they cannot meet the required review deadline. This helps the journal appoint an alternative reviewer and avoid delays in the publication process.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts sent to them for review as confidential documents. They must not disclose the content of the manuscript, discuss it with anyone outside the Editorial Board, or use its data, ideas, or findings before publication.
Reviewers must not retain copies of the manuscript or use them for any personal, research, teaching, or professional purpose outside the peer-review process. Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscript texts or data to any external tools or platforms, including artificial intelligence tools, if doing so would violate manuscript confidentiality, authors’ rights, or the journal’s policies.

Objectivity in Review

Peer review must be based on scientific and objective criteria and must not be influenced by personal, institutional, or ideological considerations related to the authors. Reviewers should provide clear reports supported by scientific and methodological arguments, indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, its originality, methodological soundness, accuracy of findings, currency of references, quality of documentation, and compliance with the journal’s author guidelines.
Reviewers’ comments should be constructive and professional and must avoid personal, offensive, or unsupported statements. Comments should help authors improve the manuscript and help the Editorial Board make a fair editorial decision based on scholarly grounds.

Verification of Sources and Citations

Reviewers should alert the Editorial Board to any obvious deficiency in documentation, inaccurate citation, inappropriate references, outdated sources, or substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and other published works known to the reviewer. Reviewers must also notify the Editorial Board if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, fabrication of results, or any form of research misconduct, without contacting the authors directly regarding such cases.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment, whether personal, academic, professional, financial, or institutional. If a reviewer has a direct or indirect relationship with any of the authors, their institution, or the subject matter of the manuscript that may affect impartiality, the reviewer must decline the review invitation and inform the Editorial Board.
Reviewers must not use any information, ideas, or data contained in the reviewed manuscript for personal, research, competitive, or professional purposes before publication or without the explicit written permission of the authors.

Commitment to Review Ethics

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process, submit their reports within the agreed timeframe as far as possible, and handle manuscripts with integrity and impartiality. They must not attempt to contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript except through the Editorial Board.
Reviewers’ recommendations must be based on sound scholarly evaluation and not on personal or non-scientific considerations. Reviewers must not recommend citation of their own work or the work of any specific party unless it is genuinely relevant to the manuscript and improves its scholarly quality.

Note on Review Confidentiality

Reviewers are requested not to include their names or any identifying information in the review report or comments file submitted to the journal, in order to preserve the confidentiality and impartiality of the peer-review process in accordance with the journal’s adopted review system.