Peer Review Process

The review process for MARSAHALA is designed to ensure the quality and integrity of the research we publish. Our process involves multiple stages, each aimed at thoroughly evaluating the submitted work.

  1. Initial Assessment by the Managing Editor

    Upon submission, the Managing Editor will conduct an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, format, and submission guidelines. If the manuscript meets the essential criteria, it will proceed to the next stage. If not, the author will be notified, and the manuscript may be returned or rejected.

  2. Double-Blind Peer Review

    Once the initial assessment is complete, the manuscript will undergo a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous to each other, ensuring that the review is impartial and unbiased. The manuscript will be sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the field of study relevant to the article. These reviewers will evaluate the manuscript's quality, originality, and relevance, assessing aspects such as the research methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.

  3. Reviewer Feedback and Revision Requests

    After reviewing the manuscript, the reviewers will provide detailed feedback, including suggestions for improvement, concerns about methodology, or recommendations for enhancing clarity and structure. Based on this feedback, authors may be asked to revise the manuscript. Authors should carefully address each point raised by the reviewers and provide an apparent response to how the revisions have been implemented.

  4. Final Decision

    After the revisions have been submitted, the Managing Editor and the reviewers will assess whether the manuscript has been adequately improved. If the changes are satisfactory, the manuscript will be accepted for publication. In cases where significant revisions are still needed, the manuscript may be sent back for further revision. It may be rejected if the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication after multiple revisions.

  5. Continuous Communication

    Throughout the process, authors will receive updates on the status of their submissions. Communication is maintained to ensure that authors are aware of the review timeline, any revision requests, and the final decision regarding publication.

This rigorous review process helps maintain the academic rigor and integrity of the journal, ensuring that only high-quality research is published.