PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

An-Nida: Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure objectivity, quality, and fairness in scholarly evaluation. Both the identities of authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process.

Review Workflow

  1. Initial Screening
    • Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes initial screening by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s focus, scope, formatting, and ethical standards.
    • Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria or exhibiting signs of plagiarism will be desk rejected.
  2. Reviewer Assignment
    • Suitable manuscripts are forwarded to two independent reviewers who are experts in the subject area.
    • Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, publication record, and lack of conflict of interest with the author(s).
  3. Review Process
    • The review process typically takes 4–6 weeks.
    • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:
      • Originality and significance of the topic
      • Theoretical or empirical contribution
      • Methodological soundness
      • Clarity of presentation and organization
      • Relevance to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary inquiry
    • Each reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:
      • Accept without revision
      • Accept with minor revisions
      • Major revisions required
      • Reject
  4. Editorial Decision
    • The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board based on the reviewers' recommendations.
    • If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors with detailed feedback and a deadline for resubmission.
    • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers (especially in cases of major revisions).
  5. Final Acceptance and Publication
    • After acceptance, the article undergoes copyediting and layout editing.
    • Authors will receive proofs for final approval before publication.
    • The article will then be published online in the current or forthcoming issue.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and integrity throughout the process.
  • They must declare any potential conflict of interest and withdraw from the process if necessary.
  • Reviewers are not permitted to use any part of the submitted manuscript for personal advantage.

Appeals and Disputes

  • Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial board, supported by reasonable academic arguments.
  • Appeals will be reviewed objectively, and the decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.