Peer-review Policy

The scientific peer review system is one of the pillars of the publication process with the aim of selecting research of scientific quality.

Within this framework, the journal follows a double-blind peer review procedure. During this procedure, the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

Average article processing time

Mean time from submission to initial decision: 7 Days

Mean time from initial decision to peer-review decision: 30 Days

Mean time to publish after acceptance: 41 Days

First: Peer-review phase:

Peer-review shall take place in the “Qadaya-Lugawiyat journal” through the national portal of Algerian journals (ASJP in accordance with the following stages and steps:

Evaluation:

Starts as soon as you receive the article sent to the publication from the editorial chairman.
The Editor-in-Chief assigns the Editor-in-Chief to evaluate the article formally to verify the availability of the following conditions:
The article matched the journal's template and publication conditions.
Authenticity of scientific material.
Verify that quotations do not exceed those that expose the article to rejection.
If the article is ascertained to be in conformity with the conditions, the editorial secretary shall submit his report to the Editor-in-Chief, who shall in turn inform the author of the article the acceptance of their Peer-reviewed article.
If the article does not conform to the formal requirements, the Editor-in-Chief shall submit his report to the Editor-in-Chief by refusing, together with the reasons, to inform the author of the article and ask him to adjust the article and send it back.

Scientific Peer-reviewing:

The article shall be transmitted to the arbitral process upon receipt by the Editor-in-Chief of the preliminary acceptance report by the Editorial Secretariat.
The editor-in-chief shall at this stage transmit the article to two reviewers; they shall be selected in accordance with the following conditions:
Taking into account the language of the article.
Taking into account the reviewer’s careful specialization.
Taking into account the scientific rank.
Taking into account the institution to which the author of the article belongs.
Taking into account the principle of conflict of interest.
The reviewer will thoroughly review the content of the article.
After selecting the reviewers in accordance with the preceding conditions, the editor-in-chief shall delete the information relating to the author of the article; because research subject to Peer-review prepares confidential documents and data, to ensure objectivity in scientific Peer-review.
The article is sent in the form of "(PDF Coded to the reviewer.
The reviewer makes observations associated with the formal linguistic aspect: (linguistic, stylistic, spelling, typo...) another is related to research ideas and the knowledge aspect of it: (value of work, validity of results, accuracy of data, and discussion of ideas...).
The reviewers' observations contribute to providing the necessary information about the article, to assist the editorial board in making a correct decision about the publication.
The article is rejected by the editorial board on the basis of the reviewers' decision to contain many linguistic errors.
The final decision of the reviewers shall be issued with one of the following images:
Acceptance without adjustments.
Acceptance of minor adjustments.
Acceptance with major adjustments.
The journal reserves the right to stop the review process or not to take it at any time and for any reason.

Editorial Board's decision: The editorial board's decision - based on the reports of the reviewers - is issued with one of the following images:

Acceptance without modification: The article is accepted for publication without amendment, if two reports are received that the article is accepted without amendment.
Accepted with reserves:
If one or both reviewers propose amendments to the content of the article, the author of the article shall be informed of the reviewers' decision to make the necessary adjustments within a period of time specified by the editorial board.
If the author receives a decision to accept and reject the article, the editor-in-chief refers the article to a third reviewer to prepare a decision that would be the subject of the final decision on whether or not to publish the article.
Article rejection:
If the article is rejected by the reviewers, the article shall inform the author of the decision and its reasons.
If the reviewer’s decision contains information that reports scientific theft, or duplication of publications of the article (intended to repost an article published in advance), the original version must be obtained to settle the matter in a kind of confidentiality, and the journal follows a plan based on the Code of Ethics of Publishing (COPEAvailable at the following link :

https://publicationethics.org

If the final decision is taken by the Editorial Authority to accept the article for publication, the author of the article is informed of the decision with the need to include the reviewer in the portal to complete the publication procedures.

Charter of the Reviewer’s Work:: The reviewer’s work is based on a set of conditions and obligations set out in the "Charter of the Reviewer", which we summarize at the following points:

Reviewer’s Terms and Obligations:
Impartiality, honesty and objectivity, and ensuring that there is no conflict of interest would affect the objectivity of the reviewer's report.
Employing mechanisms of critical and objective thinking in Peer-review.
Take into account the clarity in the drafting of the report that benefits the researcher.
Full time and commitment to the timely completion of the report.
To have the spirit of initiative in raising the level of Peer-review and publishing in the journal.
Rigour and clarity in decision-making while adhering to scientific standards.
Respond in a polite and constructive manner, in a formula proportionate to what is customary in the event of acceptance or rejection.
The reviewer has the right to reject an article Peer-review in two cases:
Not matching specialty.
Not to discharge the reviewer’s preoccupation with the reviewer’s Peer-review of other acts in the journal.
If the reviewer wishes to withdraw from the Review Board of Auditors, please inform the Editorial Board in advance.
If the reviewer finds himself unable to deliver the report in a timely manner for some reason, please inform the Editor-in-Chief to select another reviewer.
The reviewer shall be granted a 30-day extendable Peer-review period.
The reviewer shall not be entitled to submit a work for publication in the Journal until he has withdrawn from the Auditor's Board.
Handling research papers:

Research received by the Journal is classified documents and is handled by the reviewers as such; they contain outstanding data and ideas, which must be kept confidential, including the prohibition of sharing research content or results with other parties.

Furthermore, the information provided is not allowed to be used for research, quoted in the Court's publications or research..

Writing Peer-review Report:

- The main objective of the review is to provide the necessary and necessary information to reach a decision on the publication of the research.

The review should also provide guidance and recommendations to authors on how to improve research to a level that allows it to be published.

- A negative review of authors must clarify the weaknesses of their research, so that authors whose research has been rejected will learn the reasons for that decision, as well as generally see what needs to be changed and adjusted to upgrade the research to a publishing standard..

Approval of the review of the paper is a moral obligation to provide a thorough and comprehensive review, which requires the time needed to submit a comprehensive and accurate report.

- The reviewer’s acceptance of the search Peer-review, presumably prior knowledge of the possibility of submitting the Peer-review report within the specified time limits.

- It is morally unacceptable to read the paper in passing, provide a superficial and inaccurate review.

The journal is waiting for reviewers to submit a report that will assess the quality, relevance and novelty of the ideas presented in the research.

- Review should not be limited to editorial problems (e.g. typo, spelling),

- It is necessary to note here that the journal needs the reviewer’s scientific expertise and not his editorial assistance, and therefore the journal awaits reviews focused on research ideas. They contribute to providing information about the value or health of the work, and assist the editorial board in making an informed and informed decision on publication; It should be noted here that research accepted based on its content will be subject to linguistic scrutiny and typesetting prior to publication.