Peer Review Process

The Editorial Board is responsible for overseeing the strategic direction and academic quality of the journal, including the management of the peer review process. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in handling issues such as article retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections of published work. The Editorial Board also monitors potential misconduct by authors, reviewers, or editors and takes appropriate action when ethical concerns are raised regarding submitted or published manuscripts.

The peer review process supports the Editorial Board in making informed decisions regarding submitted manuscripts and contributes to improving the quality of scholarly work through constructive feedback. The Jordan Journal of Applied Science – Humanities Series implements a rigorous, objective, and constructive peer review system in collaboration with a network of qualified experts. The journal is committed to ensuring that all published research is original, scientifically sound, and of high academic quality, in accordance with COPE ethical standards.

2. Review Procedure (Double-Blind Review)

The journal follows a double-blind peer review process in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The review procedure typically includes the following steps:

• Manuscripts are submitted by authors through the journal’s online submission system.

• The editorial office conducts an initial screening to ensure compliance with submission guidelines, including formatting and language requirements. Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to authors.

• The handling editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability and academic quality to determine whether it proceeds to peer review.

• Suitable reviewers are selected from the journal’s database and editorial recommendations.

• Review invitations are sent to selected reviewers.

• Based on reviewers’ reports, the handling editor makes one of the following decisions: acceptance, revision, or rejection.

• Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments to support manuscript improvement.

3. Editor Responsibilities

• The editor is responsible for determining which submissions are suitable for peer review, guided by the journal’s scope, submission guidelines, and ethical and legal considerations (including plagiarism, libel, and copyright issues).

• Publication decisions may be made in consultation with reviewers and editorial board members.

• Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial or institutional pressures to preserve academic integrity.

• The editor ensures the publication of corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

• The review process is strictly confidential, and manuscript information must not be disclosed to anyone outside the relevant editorial and review parties.

• Unpublished materials must not be used by the editor for personal research or advantage.

• The editor ensures a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Timeliness: Reviewers who feel unqualified or unable to complete a review within the required timeframe should notify the editor promptly.

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed without editorial authorization.

• Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted professionally and objectively, avoiding personal criticism of authors.

• Scholarly Contribution: Reviewers should identify relevant literature not cited by the authors and report any significant overlap or similarity with other published work.

• Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not use privileged information for personal advantage and should decline reviews where conflicts of interest exist due to competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships.