Peer Review Policy

The Qaiwan Journal of Science is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and quality in the publication process. Our peer review policy ensures that all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous, fair, and unbiased evaluation by experts in the respective fields. This process guarantees the publication of scientifically sound and innovative research that aligns with the journal’s scope.

  • Peer Review Model: The journal operates a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality and confidentiality. In this model:
  • The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

This process minimizes potential biases and focuses solely on the quality of the manuscript.

  • Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to verify:
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope.
    • Compliance with submission guidelines.
    • Basic scientific and ethical standards.
    • Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria may be desk-rejected without further review.
  • Reviewer Selection
    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, previous publications, and familiarity with the topic. In some cases, a third reviewer or a statistical reviewer may be invited if additional input is necessary.
  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
    • Originality and significance of the research.
    • Clarity of research questions and objectives.
    • Soundness of methodology and data analysis.
    • Interpretation of results and alignment with conclusions.
    • Contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
    • Proper referencing and ethical compliance.
    • Reviewers provide detailed feedback, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.
  • Reviewer Misconduct

The journal takes allegations of reviewer misconduct very seriously. This includes breaches of confidentiality, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential materials, or intentionally delaying the review process for personal or competitive gain. Any reported incidents will be thoroughly investigated.

  • Review Decisions

Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accept – Minor or no revisions required.
  • Minor Revisions – Publication conditional upon minor amendments.
  • Major Revisions – Substantial changes required, with resubmission for further review.
  • Reject – Manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication.