The peer review/editorial process aims to enhance the scientific weight of the material submitted for publication, ensuring the integrity, coherence, and methodological rigor of its ideas, as well as the accuracy and clarity of its information, language correctness, the absence of language targeting any entity, and its freedom from scientific and logical fallacies, presenting it as authentic and original scientific output.
The peer review process ensures balance, objectivity, and fairness in presenting the scientific material, respecting the public freedoms of others, and not infringing upon their private lives' sanctity.
The peer review/editorial process ensures providing the researcher with comments, suggestions, or requests for substantive or non-substantive amendments to make the material suitable for publication in the journal.
The editorial board requests that the reviewer/editor conduct the peer review or editing process according to a template providing the required tasks accurately.
The peer review report should conclude with a recommendation to: accept the scientific material for publication, revise and amend it, or reject it.
The peer review/editorial process should provide the researcher with scientific and methodological comments that contribute to enriching the scientific material submitted for publication.
The mission of the reviewer includes:
Ensuring the study's adherence to a research methodology.
Ensuring the clarity of the title and its relevance to the content.
Ensuring the absence of scientific fallacies in the material.
Verifying the accuracy of documentation.
Ensuring that the study's results have addressed the research questions posed at the beginning.
Ensuring the absence of any attack on any entity or person in the scientific material.
Ensuring the absence of any inappropriate phrases or expressions.
Focusing on the strength of the language used and the coherence of ideas presented in paragraphs.
Expanding, condensing, or modifying information and paragraphs as necessary.
Providing suggestions that, if taken, can enhance the scientific weight of the material.
It is preferable for the reviewer/editor to have professional, technical, and technological expertise in the peer review/editorial process, or to make amendments directly to the material electronically, using track changes and comments features.
The journal's editorial board may review or discuss the reviewer/editor's report on the scientific material if necessary, such as if it is not satisfied with its content, or part of it. It may also request a second peer review/editorial process for the scientific material by another reviewer/editor.
Ethics
The reviewer/editor should employ direct, professional, and honest scientific language in their report, without hostility or incitement towards the researcher. When providing a critical evaluation of the scientific material, it is essential to explain the comments or opinions offered by the reviewer/editor.
The peer review/editorial process does not involve direct communication between the reviewer/editor and the researcher.
The peer review process is highly confidential, and its information should not be used for the benefit of any other individual or to cause harm.
The reviewer/editor is not permitted to involve another person in the peer review/editorial process unless it is necessary and approved by the editorial management.
The reviewers/editors must inform the editorial management of their refusal to review/edit in cases where:
There is a conflict of interest or competing interests that prevent fair and unbiased review/editing.
If they lack sufficient expertise to review/edit the material.
If there is doubt about the researcher's identity, potentially leading to conflict of interest.
The reviewer/editor must inform the editorial management, confidentially, if there are suspicions of ethical violations, such as falsification or fabrication of information, or if they become aware that the scientific material is submitted by another party.
If the scientific material sent to the reviewers/editors by the journal's editorial management was previously reviewed/edited for another journal, they must confidentially inform the editorial management to take necessary actions before conducting the review/editing.
If the reviewer/editor discovers an error in the peer review/editorial process after submitting their report, or if they realize a scientific matter related to the scientific material or need to make corrections or amendments to their report, they must immediately inform the editorial management.
Procedures
The authenticity of the submitted scientific material for publication is verified using the Plagscan or Turnitin plagiarism detection software, which is recognized by the journal.
Original research, studies, and scientific reports are reviewed by the editorial management to ensure compliance with publication policies and principles, as well as alignment with the journal's goals, interests, and policies.
The editorial management reserves the right to reject any research or report that does not relate to the journal's areas of specialization and topics, fails to achieve its objectives, or lacks scientific rigor, without disclosing the reasons.
All research and studies submitted for publication in the Middle Eastern Studies journal ( MESJ) undergo a blind peer review process, as well as scientific and linguistic editing by the editorial management and editorial board.
Initially approved research and studies are sent to at least one expert peer reviewer in the relevant field, requesting a peer review report on whether the research or study is acceptable for publication as is, acceptable with minor revisions, acceptable with major revisions, or completely unacceptable for publication.
The researcher receives a letter detailing the peer review report content for revision if the study is deemed acceptable for publication as is or with revisions.
A rejection letter is sent to the researcher if the study is deemed completely unacceptable for publication.
The researcher bears sole responsibility, both ethically and legally, for the content of the research, and not the editorial management or board.
The peer review process for research and studies is completed within a maximum of three months from receiving the research or study, and accepted scientific material is published in the issue deemed appropriate by the editorial management for publication.
