Peer Review Policies

Initial Screening

  1. Research submitted for publication shall undergo plagiarism screening using plagiarism and citation detection software such as iThenticate, Kashif of Dar Al-Maarefa Digital, or any other reliable artificial intelligence tool approved by the journal, upon which the decision to proceed with or reject the peer-review process shall be based.
  2. The Editorial Board member shall verify the extent to which the research fulfills the publication requirements, ensure the completion of the essential elements, and confirm that it is free from prohibited publication matters in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
  3. The Editorial Board member specialized in the field of the research shall review the paper according to an evaluation form prepared for this purpose, ensuring the confidentiality of the researcher’s identity. The evaluation includes assessing the extent to which the research fulfills the essential scientific standards, and the member shall issue a final opinion regarding its eligibility to proceed to the peer-review stage.
  4. The Editorial Board member shall observe applicable laws and regulations during the initial screening of the research to ensure that the content complies with legal and ethical standards.
  5. The Editorial Board shall review and update publication standards, requirements, and topics, in addition to determining the criteria that warrant initial rejection, thereby ensuring transparency in evaluating submitted articles.
  6. If the research is rejected during the initial screening, the researcher may request the reasons for rejection, and the Editor-in-Chief shall provide them upon request without the need to submit detailed reports.
  7. In rare cases, the researcher may submit a written and reasoned objection to the Editor-in-Chief within fourteen (14) days of receiving the rejection decision, provided that the objection is based on clear scientific grounds. The Editor-in-Chief shall review the objection in consultation with the relevant Editorial Board member and may appoint a third reviewer if necessary. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief in this matter shall be final.

Peer-Review Process

The journal adopts a blind review confidentiality policy and authorizes the Editorial Board to determine the appropriate type according to the norms followed within the journal’s discipline. The blind review process may be:

    • Single-blind: The reviewer’s identity is concealed from the researcher.
    • Double-blind: The identities of both the reviewer and the researcher are concealed from one another.
    • Triple-blind: The identities of the researcher, reviewer, and the Editorial Board member authorized to conduct the initial screening are concealed from one another.
  1. It must be ensured that the body of the research, acknowledgments, footnotes, and appendices contain no information indicating the identity of the researchers, and confidentiality shall remain maintained throughout the peer-review process.
  2. The journal shall appoint at least two reviewers for each research paper. In the event of disagreement between reviewers regarding acceptance of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer whose opinion shall be decisive. If the third reviewer rejects the paper or requests major revisions, the journal shall apologize to the researcher for not accepting the paper for publication.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members shall establish criteria for excluding reviewers’ reports.
  4. The Editor-in-Chief has the right to exclude peer-review reports that lack seriousness or fail to meet standards of scientific quality or integrity after presenting them to the Editorial Board.
  5. The reviewer’s remuneration shall be withheld and the reviewer shall be removed from the reviewers’ list if the peer-review report is excluded.
  6. The Editorial Board shall determine the criteria for selecting reviewers in accordance with academic norms applicable to the scientific discipline and in a manner that ensures the quality of the peer-review process. The reviewer must satisfy the following conditions:
    • The reviewer’s academic rank must not be lower than that of the researcher.
    • The reviewer’s academic rank must not be lower than Associate Professor in cases where no Professor-ranked reviewer is available.
    • The reviewer must possess research expertise and precise specialization in the subject matter of the reviewed research.
    • In rare specializations, research may be reviewed by individuals possessing research expertise and precise specialization in the subject matter of the research, provided that:
      • They hold at least a doctoral degree.
      • They have a documented academic record including at least three published articles, two of which must be published in peer-reviewed journals with internationally recognized indexing or classification (such as Scopus or Web of Science).
    • Priority in peer review shall be given to individuals holding an academic rank not lower than Associate Professor or to researchers with a recognized scientific reputation in the field of specialization.
  7. The reviewer shall be requested to provide their written opinion on the research according to the elements of the approved review form within a period not exceeding one month. At the end of the evaluation, the reviewer shall express an opinion regarding the suitability of the research for publication, rejection, or publication after major or minor revisions.
  8. The reviewer must adhere to responsible peer-review conduct as follows:
    • Reviewers should not review research falling outside the scope of the journal’s specialization.
    • Any external reviewer who is unqualified or unwilling to review the submitted research must inform the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the peer-review process.
    • Reviewers must not use any information or data obtained from the reviewed research for their personal benefit.
    • Reviewers must not accept reviewing research in which there is a conflict of interest.
    • Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed research and any other published works known to them.
  9. Editorial decisions shall be determined according to the following table:
No.      
1 Suitable for Publication Suitable for Publication Conditional Acceptance
2 Suitable for Publication Minor Revisions Minor Revisions
3 Suitable for Publication Major Revisions Major Revisions
4 Suitable for Publication Not Suitable for Publication A decisive third reviewer shall be appointed. If the third reviewer decides major revisions or rejection, the research shall be finally rejected.
5 Minor Revisions Minor Revisions Minor Revisions
6 Minor Revisions Major Revisions Major Revisions
7 Minor Revisions Not Suitable for Publication A decisive third reviewer shall be appointed. If the reviewer decides major revisions or rejection, the research shall be finally rejected with notification of the reasons to the researcher.
8 Major Revisions Major Revisions The research shall be rejected with notification of the reasons to the researcher upon request.
9 Major Revisions Not Suitable for Publication The research shall be rejected with notification of the reasons to the researcher upon request.
10 Not Suitable for Publication Not Suitable for Publication The research shall be rejected with notification of the reasons to the researcher upon request.

Note:

  • Conditional Acceptance, grants the Editor-in-Chief the authority to issue publication approval after the researcher completes the formatting requirements for publication.
  • Major Revisions are revisions requiring substantial reformulation of the research content or modification of important sections of the research, such as the theoretical framework, data collection or analysis, rewriting the discussion and results, or correcting fundamental methodological errors.
  • Minor Revisions are revisions that do not affect the essence of the research or its findings but are necessary to improve the quality of the research linguistically, scientifically, or formally, such as rephrasing certain paragraphs, adding scientific references, statistical or explanatory improvements without changing the research methodology, linguistic correction, reformatting research elements, or rearranging tables regardless of the quantity of such revisions.
  • In cases of major revisions, the research shall be resubmitted to the same reviewer after the researcher completes the revisions to ensure their compliance with the requested modifications.
  • In cases of minor revisions, the modifications shall be verified by the same reviewer.
  • When a third reviewer is appointed, previous reviewers’ reports shall not be sent to them.
  • In the event of inconsistency between the scientific justifications contained in the reviewer’s report and the conclusion reached therein, the research shall be referred to the relevant Editorial Board member to review the consistency of the report with the approved review standards. Accordingly, the reviewer shall be contacted to reconsider the review to rectify the discrepancy between the evaluation and the recommendation. If the reviewer refuses, they shall be excluded and replaced by another reviewer to ensure the integrity and objectivity of the peer-review process.
  1. The journal shall maintain a list of approved reviewers within the journal’s specializations, and this list shall be continuously updated.
  2. A reviewer affiliated with the same academic or research institution as any of the researchers participating in the research may not be appointed, in order to ensure impartiality and avoid any potential conflict of interest.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members may not review research submitted for publication in the journal, even if it falls within their field of specialization, in order to ensure integrity and impartiality in the peer-review process.
  4. In exceptional cases where the journal faces delays in issuing more than one issue due to insufficient publishable studies, the Editor-in-Chief may, in accordance with the journal’s policies, request the researcher to make major revisions to a rejected paper according to the approved table, or permit resubmission of the research after substantial revisions have been made. This shall be a temporary measure until the journal’s situation is corrected and continuity of publication is ensured, while maintaining compliance with academic quality standards.

Confidentiality of Information in the Peer-Review Process

  • The Editorial Board is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of all information obtained during peer-review or evaluation processes, and such information may not be used for any personal or professional purposes.
  • Reviewers are prohibited from using or permitting the use of any information or data contained in the research in research work prior to the official publication of the research.
  • Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of information or ideas obtained during the review process and may not exploit them for any personal or professional purpose.
  • This obligation extends to reviewers who decline the review after examining the research, as they are prohibited from using or disclosing any scientific information in any form whatsoever.

Criteria for Authorship Inclusion

Authors participating in the research must be identified based on their actual contributions to preparing the study and analyzing its results. In this regard, the following rules shall apply:

  • Each author must fulfill at least one of the following criteria in order to be included in the list of authors:
    • Substantial contribution to the research design, development of the theoretical framework, data collection, or data analysis.
    • Active participation in drafting the manuscript or conducting a substantial scientific review thereof.
    • Responsibility for any substantial part of the research and the ability to defend it scientifically.
    • Final approval of the version submitted for publication and responsibility for its content.
  • Who Is Not Considered an Author:
    No individual may be included in the list of authors if they did not make an actual contribution to the research. This includes the following cases:
    • Individuals who provided technical or administrative support without substantial scientific contribution.
    • Funders or supporting entities that did not participate in drafting or analyzing the research.
    • Officials of research institutions who did not directly contribute to the study.
  • Order of Names in the Authors List:
    The order of authors must be agreed upon by all participants according to their actual contributions. In the absence of agreement, the order shall be based on each author’s role in preparing the research. The following is recommended:
    • The first author shall be the individual who made the greatest contribution to preparing and writing the study.
    • The corresponding author shall be responsible for communication with the journal and management of the review and peer-review process.
    • In cases of equal contributions, co-authorship with equal contribution may be indicated within the disclosures of published research.
    • The corresponding author bears full responsibility for communication with the journal at all stages of publication, including receiving correspondence, responding to reviewers’ comments, and submitting the final revised version. The corresponding author also ensures that all authors have reviewed and approved the final version and bears responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided about them in the submission forms and disclosures.
  • Adding or Removing Authors After Submission:
    • No author may be added or removed after submission of the research except in justified exceptional cases approved by the Editorial Board.
    • In exceptional cases, a formal request explaining the reasons for the change must be submitted to the Editorial Board accompanied by the approval of all authors.
  • Handling Authorship Disputes:         
    • In the event of a dispute regarding authorship or order of names, COPE standards shall be followed, and in some cases academics holding a rank not lower than Associate Professor in the same specialization may be consulted to resolve the dispute.
    • Any attempt to add authors who did not actually contribute or to exclude key contributors may result in rejection of the research or disciplinary action in accordance with the journal’s policies.

 For more information, you may download a PDF copy of the editorial policies and guidelines of the Journal of Security Research and Studies at Saad Al-Abdullah Academy for Security Sciences through this link.