The submitted papers to Imam Ali ΄s Studies follow a double-blind peer-review process. In this review process, the paper is reviewed by two anonymous reviewers who are experts in the assigned review. The reviewers are also anonymous to the author(s).
3) Recommendations before Reviewing the Article
Critical Studies in Texts and Programs of Human Sciences aims to select and publish the highest quality research in the relevant fields. In order to achieve this goal, reviewing must be done accurately and with an impartial approach. The reviewer’s guide is designed to achieve the goal of building trust in the review and dissemination process.
- Paying attention to the ethical charter of the Critical Studies in Texts and Programs of Human Sciences.
- Reviewing the Acceptance Process of the Critical Studies in Texts and Programs of Human Sciences.
- Consider the following:
1. Articles submitted to the journal have already been reviewed by the journal's editor, and if you are in conflict with the goals and policies of the journal, you should immediately inform the editor.
2. To avoid any bias, the names of the author (s) and reviewer (s) are not known (Double-Blind Peer Review).
3. In the event of a conflict of interest for the reviewer, you must immediately notify the editor.
4. Articles are reviewed in the Semantic Noise Similarity System for plagiarism, and should be promptly reported to the Editor if there is any suspicion of plagiarism.
5. The reviewer (s) is required to submit the review results within a maximum of 30 days.
6. A reminder will be sent to the reviewer (s) ten days after submitting the article.
7. If the result is not filed within 30 days of the submission of the article to the reviewer, a second reminder will be sent to the reviewer.
8. If the reviewer (s) does not submit the review results within 10 days of the second reminder or provide a justified reason, the article will be sent to the other reviewer.
9. If the reviewer requests a general correction, the request will be sent to the responsible author by the journal office and after receiving the response and documentation, the corrected article will be sent to the reviewer.
10. If the reviewer requests minor corrections, the request will be forwarded to the author in charge of the article by the Journal, and after receiving the response and documentation, the modified article will be sent to the editor.
11. In re-adjudication, the reviewer is required to comment within 15 days on the acceptability of the correction or the need for further revisions.
12. The reviewer (s) in re-adjudication shall not make any new objections to the design unless significant changes have been made to the author (s) as a result of the amendments.
13. If the reviewer (s) accidentally identifies the article (s), it is necessary for the reviewer to review without revealing the matter.
14. If the author (s) accidentally identifies the reviewer (s) of the article, it is necessary for the author (s) to make corrections without revealing this.
15. The paper is sent for review to at least two reviewers and its outcome is decided as follows and the result is reported to the responsible author:
- If both reviewers declare the paper admissible, the article will be reviewed for a final decision at the editorial board meeting or by the editor (as the journal's scientific officer and editorial representative).
- If both articles are declared inadmissible, the article will be reviewed for decision at the editorial board meeting or by the editor (as the journal's scientific officer and editorial representative).
- If there is a disagreement between the two reviewers, the article will be sent to the third reviewer with the editor's opinion.