Peer Review Process

Peer-review process assists the editorial board in making decisions concerning the submitted manuscripts. It may also assist the authors in improving their manuscript through the editor communication with the author. Partnering with our extensive network of expert peer reviewers, our editorial team provides rigorous, objective and constructive peer review, and will support you throughout the publication process. Jordan Journal of Applied Science- Humanities Series (JJOAS-H) is led by the ethical and editorial policy guidelines (COPE) to ensure that all the research we publish is scientifically robust, original, and of the highest quality.

Editor Responsibilities

  • The editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be sent to reviewers, guided by the manuscript submission guidelines as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  • The editor may consult the reviewers and the editorial board to make publication decisions.
  • The editor should exclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards in order to maintain the integrity of the academic record.
  • The editor should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
  • The evaluation process is confidential; thus, the editor is committed not to share any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers in some instances and the editorial board members, as appropriate.
  • The editor is committed not to use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript. Private information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not to be used for personal advantage.
  • The editor should guarantee a fair and appropriate peer review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Punctuality: it is expected from any invited reviewer, who feels unqualified to review the submitted manuscript or knows that he/she will not be able provide the report because of time constraints should immediately inform the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted professionally. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the editor about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating 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 submission.