Peer Review Process
ZAHRA currently describes its editorial evaluation as a double-blind peer-review process following an initial editor and section-editor screening.
Review model and reviewer assignment
The publicly displayed policy states that a manuscript passing the editor’s initial originality screening is sent to a section editor and then to at least one reviewer. ZAHRA describes this arrangement as double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers should be withheld from each other during review as far as the editorial system and files permit.
Step-by-step evaluation
| Stage | What happens | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Submission | Manuscript and metadata are submitted online. | Authors |
| 2. Preliminary screening | Scope, completeness, originality, and text similarity are considered. | Editor |
| 3. Section handling | The manuscript is assigned to the appropriate editorial section. | Section editor |
| 4. Scholarly review | Reviewer evaluates scientific contribution, methodology, evidence, presentation, and references. | Reviewer |
| 5. Editorial evaluation | Reports and any revision are assessed to determine the next action. | Editor / section editor |
| 6. Author response | If invited, authors revise the paper and provide a detailed response. | Authors |
| 7. Final outcome | The editor communicates the final editorial outcome. | Editor |
Review criteria
- Research relevance to the journal and clarity of the research problem.
- Originality or value of the methodological, empirical, or review contribution.
- Appropriateness of research design, data processing, experimental protocol, and metrics.
- Credibility of the reported findings and consistency between evidence and conclusions.
- Strength and accuracy of related literature, citation practices, and research-ethics compliance.
- Clarity of scientific writing, tables, figures, and reproducibility information.
Published review timelines
The existing editorial policy states that reviewer assessment is expected to take no more than three weeks and describes an overall acceptance decision period of approximately 3–8 weeks. These published timelines are indicative and may vary if substantial revision or further review is required.
Types of editorial decisions
- Accepted for publication.
- Revision requested.
- Resubmit for renewed review.
- Suggested submission to a different journal.
- Rejected.
Double-blind manuscript preparation
- Remove author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and identifying contact information from the blinded manuscript file when requested.
- Review document properties and file metadata for identifying details.
- Use neutral self-citation language that does not disclose identity unnecessarily.
- Keep title page and other identifying files separate if the submission workflow requests them.