Internal Editorial Screening

Each manuscript undergoes an initial internal editorial screening by the Editorial Office or an assigned editor to determine whether it is suitable for further consideration. The screening may include assessment of the manuscript's alignment with the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic relevance, basic methodological soundness, ethical requirements, completeness, language and presentation, referencing, and compliance with submission guidelines. Where appropriate, manuscripts may also be checked using plagiarism-detection or similarity-screening tools. A manuscript that does not meet the journal's essential requirements, falls outside the journal's scope, presents substantial ethical concerns, or is clearly unsuitable for publication may be declined at the editorial screening stage without being sent for external peer review.

External Double-Blind Review

Following successful completion of the initial editorial screening, the manuscript is normally forwarded to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. The journal uses a double-blind review model. Authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript and follow the journal's anonymization requirements. Authors are also advised to avoid publicly identifying or promoting a manuscript during the review process where doing so could reasonably compromise reviewer anonymity. Reviewers are expected to decline a review assignment if they recognize the authors or identify a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality. External reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the nature of the submission and may consider:

• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Clarity of research objectives and questions
• Appropriateness of theoretical or conceptual framework
• Research design and methodological rigor
• Use and interpretation of evidence, sources, or data
• Quality and coherence of analysis and argumentation
• Validity of conclusions and their relationship to the findings
• Academic significance and relevance to the journal's readership
• Clarity, organization, language, and scholarly presentation
• Ethical and academic integrity considerations

Where substantial deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, reviewers may recommend rejection. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision; however, the final decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.

Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected carefully according to the subject, methodology, and scholarly requirements of each manuscript. The journal seeks reviewers who possess appropriate academic qualifications, relevant expertise, and a demonstrated record of scholarly or professional work in the relevant field.

• Reviewers should possess a Ph.D. or appropriate advanced academic or professional qualifications relevant to the manuscript.
• Reviewers should have demonstrated expertise through relevant scholarly publications, academic research, teaching, professional experience, or recognized contribution to their field.
• Reviewers should have sufficient subject knowledge to provide an informed and constructive assessment.
• Reviewers should not have a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript.
• Reviewers should not be selected where a recent collaboration, co-authorship, supervisory relationship, or other close professional relationship could compromise impartiality.
• Reviewers should not normally be affiliated with the same institution as the authors where such affiliation could create a conflict of interest.
• Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and should not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Publication Ethics and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews objectively, confidentially, fairly, and within the agreed timeframe. They should identify potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment and immediately inform the editor if any conflict becomes apparent during the review. Reviewer comments should be professional, evidence-based, constructive, and relevant to the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should not disclose manuscript contents, share unpublished materials with others, or use information obtained during peer review for personal benefit. Where reviewers identify serious concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated information, unethical research practices, or other forms of academic misconduct, they should confidentially notify the responsible editor and provide appropriate supporting information.

Process Overview

1. Initial Editorial Screening: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Office or an assigned editor to assess alignment with Al-Amin's aims and scope, submission requirements, ethical standards, and basic academic quality.
2. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are normally forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.
3. Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript according to its discipline and methodology, including originality, scholarly contribution, research design, evidence, analysis, academic significance, clarity, and ethical considerations.
4. Editorial Decision: The responsible editor considers the reviewers' recommendations together with the editorial assessment and makes the appropriate decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
5. Revision: Where revision is requested, authors are normally provided a specified period to address reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response to the comments.
6. Final Evaluation: The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Ethical Compliance

• Research involving human participants should include appropriate statements regarding informed consent and relevant ethical approval where required.
• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of academic misconduct may result in further investigation in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Editorial Review Model

Editorial Review Process: Research articles and other eligible scholarly submissions are normally evaluated by at least two Editors and independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Where necessary, an editor may seek additional reviews or clarification. The review process focuses on originality, scholarly contribution, theoretical or conceptual relevance, methodological appropriateness, evidence and analysis, ethical considerations, clarity of argument, and relevance to the journal's academic mission. Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered by the responsible editor. The final editorial decision is made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or another duly authorized editor.

• Independent expert assessment is normally obtained from at least two reviewers.
• Reviewer identities and author identities remain confidential under the double-blind model.
• Additional reviewers may be invited when the subject is highly specialized or when reviewer recommendations substantially differ.
• Editorial decisions are based on the totality of reviewer comments and the editor's independent assessment.
• Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because reviewers recommend publication.

Integrity, Ethics, and Quality Assurance

• Manuscripts may be screened using recognized similarity-detection tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate, where available.
• Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
• The Editorial Board reserves the right to decline, correct, or retract published material where substantial ethical or scholarly concerns are established, in accordance with the journal's relevant policies.
• The journal promotes responsible research conduct, academic integrity, transparency, and appropriate citation practices.
• Where data, research materials, or supporting evidence are applicable to the discipline, authors are encouraged to provide sufficient information to support scholarly evaluation and verification.

Estimated Review Timeline

The following timeline represents an estimated processing schedule and is not a guarantee of a fixed publication date. Actual processing time may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, editorial workload, revision requirements, and the need for additional review.