All submitted manuscripts are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Review process are double-blind peer-review. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed. The manuscript acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. No research can be included in more than one publication.

  1. Submission of Paper
    • The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via OJS.
    • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
    • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
    • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
    • Authors are not allowed to withdraw the manuscript after peer review process until they get a notification on manuscript status (rejected for publication).
    • Authors must participate in the peer review process.
    • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
    • All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
    • Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
    • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
    • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
    • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  2. Editorial Office Assessment
    • The Editorial staff checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against Adabiyah’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
    • Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
    • Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
    • Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
    • Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
    • Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
    • Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
    • Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
    • Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
    • Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
    • Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accept ethical guidelines.
    • Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
    • Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
    • Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
    • Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
  3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)
    • The EiC checks that the paper is appropriate for Adabiyah and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
  4. EiC Assigns an Editor 
    • Adabiyah has Editors Team who handle the peer review. The Editors would be assigned at this stage.
  5. Invitation to Reviewers
    • The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained. All peer review publications will be referred in double-blind peer-review process by at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
  6. Response to Invitations
    • Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
    • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
    • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
    • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
    • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
    • Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
    • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  7. Review is conducted
    • The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, revision required or reject it. Results of the review process are normally available within one month of submission.
  8. Editors evaluate the Reviews
    • The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
  9. The Decision is communicated
    • The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Authors need to correct all the revisions in the manuscript according to the reviewer's request. The reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation.
  10. Last Steps
    • If accepted, the paper is sent to production. Authors get notification. If the article is rejected, the manuscript include constructive comments from the reviewers and editors team to help the author improve the article.