Peer Review Process

Al-Hilal Journal is a journal that implements the peer review process. All articles submitted to this journal will be reviewed in a closed (double-blind review) by a minimum of two reviewers (associate editor). The response from the reviewer will be the consideration for the editor (editorial board) to determine whether an article can be published (accepted), published if revised or discarded (rejected). The returned articles must be upgraded by the authors. After the authors make improvements in accordance with feedback from the reviewer, the author should resend (re-submit) and will be reviewed again. To avoid plagiarism all articles submitted to Al-Hilal Journal will be checked with anti-plagiarism software. The editor's final decision on the manuscript is decided by the Editor in Chief.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of the Al-Hilal Journal will promptly decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insights from supporting journals. Editors also have the option to seek additional reviews when necessary. Authors will be advised when Editors decide that further review is required. The editor will first review submitted articles for adherence to the topic and writing style guidelines. All manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review, with both reviewer and author identities remaining confidential throughout the review to maintain academic excellence.

In summary, the steps in the process are as follows:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by the author).
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by the manager and editors).
  3. Editors have the authority to directly accept, reject, or review. Before proceeding to further steps, each manuscript undergoes a plagiarism check using Turnitin.
  4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
  5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by the editor to the author based on reviewer comments).
  6. Paper Revision (by the author).
  7. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestions (by the author) following a process similar to point number 1.
  8. If the reviewer is satisfied with the revision, the editor notifies the author of acceptance.
  9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps from point number 1 to 5 constitute one round of the peer-review process (see the gray area in the figure). The editor or editorial board evaluates the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and makes a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accepted as is: The journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The journal will publish the paper and request the author to make minor corrections within a specified timeframe.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors within a specified timeframe.
  4. Resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes.
  5. Rejected (outright rejection): The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.