Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality, originality, and integrity of the research published by the Samangan Academic and Research Journal. All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough and impartial evaluation by qualified experts.

Upon submission, manuscripts receive an initial editorial screening by the managing editor to verify compliance with the journal’s scope, ethical standards, and submission guidelines. Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to an editor, who oversees the peer review process and recommends qualified reviewers.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts with relevant expertise. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, wherein the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential to promote impartial assessment.

Reviewers provide detailed evaluations concerning the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, methodology, significance, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. Based on reviewer feedback, the editor makes a final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection. Authors are requested to revise their manuscripts according to reviewer comments, and revised manuscripts may undergo further review.

  1. Accessing Manuscripts for Review

Reviewers will receive an invitation email containing a secure link to the journal’s submission system. To access manuscripts for review:

  1. Log in to the journal’s online submission and review system using your registered credentials.
  2. Navigate to the “Reviewer Dashboard” or “Pending Reviews” section.
  3. Click the assigned manuscript title or “Review Manuscript” link.
  4. Download all relevant files, including the manuscript, supplementary materials, and reviewer instructions.
  5. Submit your review and recommendation through the system by the specified deadline.

If you encounter difficulties accessing the system or files, please get in touch with the editorial office promptly.

  1. Reviewer Profile and Eligibility

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

  • Possess relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Have a strong publication record and academic affiliation.
  • Have no conflicts of interest with the manuscript authors or content.
  • Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
  • Comply with ethical guidelines and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct a thorough, objective, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Provide clear, detailed, and actionable feedback to authors.
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or communicate promptly if an extension or declination is necessary.
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript materials.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.
  • Refrain from recommending unnecessary citations or self-citations.
  • Avoid use of AI tools for report generation except for minor language corrections, which must be disclosed.
  1. Preparing the Review Report

A comprehensive review report should include:

  • Summary: Concisely describes the manuscript’s objectives, primary findings, and contributions.
  • Major Comments: Critical evaluation of the study design, methodology, data integrity, interpretation of results, and overall significance.
  • Minor Comments: Suggestions on clarity, organization, presentation, typographical errors, and formatting issues.
  • Recommendation: One of the following:
    • Accept without revisions
    • Accept with minor revisions
    • Revise and resubmit with major revisions
    • Reject

Comments should be respectful, constructive, and aimed at enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must uphold the highest ethical standards by:

  • Ensuring confidentiality of unpublished material.
  • Identifying and reporting suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or other misconduct cases.
  • Declaring any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Avoiding any use of manuscript information for personal advantage.
  1. Confidentiality and Anonymity

The journal’s double-anonymized review process requires that reviewers not attempt to identify authors and keep their identity anonymous in the review report unless otherwise permitted.

  1. Evaluation Criteria

When assessing manuscripts, reviewers should consider:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Appropriateness of the study design and methodology.
  • Quality and robustness of data and analysis.
  • Clarity and logic of the presentation.
  • Significance and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Compliance with ethical standards.
  • Adequacy of literature review and citations.
  1. Reviewer Recognition

The Samangan Academic and Research Journal values reviewer contributions and offers:

  • Formal acknowledgment of reviewers annually.
  • Certificates of appreciation upon request.
  • Opportunities for outstanding reviewers to join the Reviewer Board.
  • Integration of review activities with ORCID profiles, where applicable.