Peer-Review Policy

The scientific peer review system is fundamental to the publication process, ensuring the selection of high-quality research.

First Phase: Peer-Review

Peer review at "AL-Lisaniyyat" is conducted through the Algerian Scientific Journals Platform (ASJP) and follows these stages:

Evaluation:

- Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief initiates formal evaluation to ensure the article meets journal formatting and publication criteria.

- The authenticity of scientific content is verified, and excessive quotations that may lead to rejection are assessed.

- If compliant, the Editorial Secretary informs the author of preliminary acceptance; if not, the article is returned for adjustments.

Scientific Peer-Review:

- Following preliminary acceptance, the article undergoes double-blind review by two reviewers selected based on language proficiency, specialization, scientific standing, and institutional affiliation.

- Author information is anonymized to ensure impartiality.

- Reviewers provide detailed assessments covering linguistic and technical aspects, as well as the scholarly merit, validity of results, accuracy of data, and discussion of ideas.

- Reviewer feedback informs editorial decisions:

  - Acceptance without changes.

  - Acceptance with minor revisions.

  - Acceptance pending major revisions.

  - The journal reserves the right to halt or reject the review process at any time.

Editorial Decision:

- Based on reviewer reports, the Editorial Board decides:

  - Acceptance without modifications if both reviewers recommend.

  - Conditional acceptance requiring revisions based on reviewer feedback.

  - If conflicting recommendations occur, a third reviewer may be consulted.

  - Rejection with reasons provided to the author.

Article Handling:

- Articles are treated as confidential documents, with reviewers prohibited from disclosing or using research content without authorization.

- Reviewers must provide comprehensive, constructive feedback to help authors improve their work to meet publication standards.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

- Reviewers must:

  - Maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

  - Apply critical thinking and adhere to scientific standards.

  - Provide timely, clear, and respectful feedback.

  - Decline reviews outside their expertise or if unable to meet deadlines.

Writing the Review Report:

- Reviews should focus on the research's quality, relevance, and originality.

- Feedback should guide authors in enhancing their research for publication.

Conclusion:

- Acceptance of a review entails a commitment to thorough evaluation, ensuring informed editorial decisions.

- Superficial or incomplete reviews are discouraged, as detailed assessment aids in maintaining publication quality.

Final Note:

- Accepted articles undergo final language and formatting checks prior to publication, focusing on enhancing clarity and adherence to publication standards.