Peer Review Policy
1. Introduction
As a biannual peer-reviewed academic journal published by Al Refak University for Applied Sciences and Humanities, the Al Refak Journal for Knowledge is committed to applying a rigorous and transparent peer review system. This system ensures the quality of published research and is based on firm ethical and academic standards that align with national laws and regulations, as well as internationally recognized publishing standards.
2. Objectives
The peer review policy of Al Refak Journal for Knowledge aims to:
• Ensure the quality, originality, and credibility of published research.
• Promote transparency and fairness in research evaluation.
• Achieve alignment with academic accreditation and quality assurance requirements.
• Reinforce ethical values in publishing and peer review practices.
3. Legislative and Normative Basis
This policy is based on:
• Law No. (18) of 2010 concerning Higher Education in Libya.
• Decision No. (264) of 2020 on the Regulation of Conditions and Standards for Issuing Scientific Journals.
• The organizational regulations of scientific journals issued by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and its affiliated institutions and centers.
• International standards issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• Libyan academic references (Tripoli, Sebha).
4. Type of Review Adopted by the Journal
The journal adopts a double-blind review, where reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.
5. Peer Review Process Stages
• Initial Screening: Conducted by the editorial board to assess the alignment of the paper with the journal’s scope, and to check formatting and language quality.
• Plagiarism Check: Using plagiarism detection software. Papers are rejected if the percentage of unreferenced copying exceeds 20%.
• Reviewer Selection: At least two reviewers are nominated based on expertise, integrity, and absence of conflict of interest.
• Review Reports Submission: Each reviewer is asked to submit a detailed report assessing the paper’s quality, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, and providing a justified recommendation within a maximum period of 3 weeks.
• Author Revisions: The peer review report (with reviewer anonymity preserved) is sent to the author, who must respond within 15 days.
• Re-Review: In the case of substantial revisions, the paper is resent to the same reviewer or a third reviewer.
• Final Decision: The editorial board makes the final decision based on the review reports and the author's response, with documented justification.
• Withdrawal or Rejection: In cases of plagiarism, scientific misconduct, or duplicate publication.
6. Reviewer Recommendations and Decision Categories
| Recommendation | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Accept as it is | No modifications required. |
| Accept with minor revisions | Simple linguistic or formatting corrections. |
| Accept with major revisions | Methodological changes requiring re-review. |
| Reject | Paper does not meet academic publishing standards. |
7. Reviewer Selection Guidelines
• Reviewers are selected in coordination with editorial board members.
• A minimum of two reviewers is required per manuscript.
• Each reviewer must hold at least the rank of Assistant Professor in the relevant field.
• Reviewers may be selected from outside Al Refak University.
• Reviewers must possess sufficient research competence and expertise.
• Reviewers must not have had any relationship or interest with the author within the past three years.
• Reviewers must adhere to objectivity, confidentiality, report quality, and must not use any part of the content for personal purposes.
• Reviewer diversity in terms of institutions and universities must be considered.
• The reviewer list should be periodically updated and non-compliant reviewers removed.
8. Contents of the Peer Review Report
The peer review report includes the following elements:
• Evaluation of the originality and scientific value of the topic.
• Clarity of the research problem and coherence of objectives.
• Appropriateness and precision of the applied methodology.
• Validity of data analysis and clarity and quality of research findings.
• Accuracy and clarity of language and writing style.
• Reference documentation.
• Final recommendation.
• Reviewer notes (scientific, linguistic, methodological).
Reports are prepared using an approved form, submitted within 3 weeks, and stored for at least 3 years.
9. Professional Ethics
Reviewer Responsibilities:
• Maintain full confidentiality and avoid using the content.
• Be objective and impartial.
• Disclose any conflict of interest.
Author Responsibilities:
• Respect reviewers’ comments.
• Respond in a scientific and professional manner.
• Refrain from contacting reviewers directly.
Editorial Board Responsibilities:
• Ensure fairness in evaluation.
• Handle complaints or breaches in the review process.
• Protect the rights and interests of all parties.
10. Reviewer Compensation
Each reviewer receives a financial reward in accordance with the journal’s internal regulations and in alignment with the university’s financial transparency policies.
11. Record Keeping
The journal maintains:
• Peer review reports.
• Correspondence between authors and reviewers.
• Timeline of the review stages.
These records are used for documentation, auditing, quality assurance, and academic accreditation.
12. Policy Review
This policy is reviewed and assessed at least once every two years, or as needed, to ensure alignment with local and international standards.
