Peer Review Policy and Process

Naif Arab University Publishing House, the scholarly publishing arm of Naif Arab University for Security Sciences (NAUSS), is committed to peer review as a core mechanism for safeguarding research ethics, scientific rigor, and the integrity of the scholarly record. Our publications apply peer review in a manner consistent with recognized international best practices, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, where relevant, the ICMJE Recommendations.

This policy applies to all publications published by Naif Arab University Publishing House, including the Arab Publications of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine (AJFSFM) and other peer-reviewed titles.

1. Peer Review Model

• Publications published by Naif Arab University Publishing House operate a double-blind peer review model by default, in which:
  • Authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
• The editorial office takes reasonable steps to protect anonymity; however, authors must ensure that manuscripts are prepared to avoid revealing identity (e.g., in acknowledgments, self-citations, file metadata).

If author identity is disclosed within the manuscript, anonymity may be considered waived and the review may proceed as single-blind (reviewers anonymous; authors identifiable).

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial assessment before external review to confirm:

• Fit with the publication’s aims and scope
• Compliance with author guidelines and required declarations
• Ethical and regulatory alignment (e.g., IRB/ethics approval, consent statements where applicable)
• Basic scientific quality, clarity, and completeness
• Similarity screening and research integrity checks where applicable

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical corrections or declined at this stage if they do not meet minimum requirements.

3. External Peer Review Process

• Submissions sent for review are evaluated by two or more independent expert reviewers (and may involve additional reviewers when needed for specialized expertise).
• Review is coordinated by the Section Editor (or handling editor) under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Reviewers assess manuscripts using recognized reporting and methodological standards appropriate to the study design (as relevant), such as:
  • CONSORT (randomized trials)
  • STROBE (observational studies)
  • PRISMA (systematic reviews/meta-analyses)
  • STARD (diagnostic accuracy studies)

4. Timelines and Revisions

• Publications aim to complete the first round of peer review within a reasonable timeframe (typically within several weeks), recognizing that complexity and reviewer availability can occasionally extend timelines.
• When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified in the decision letter (commonly within two weeks for minor revisions, unless otherwise stated).
• The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for editorial decisions, including acceptance, further revision, or rejection.

5. Confidentiality and Privacy

Naif Arab University Publishing House treats all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.

• Editors must not disclose information about a manuscript (receipt, content, status, reviewer feedback, or decision) to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and authorized editorial staff.
• Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or distribute manuscripts without explicit editorial permission.
• Manuscripts and associated materials must be destroyed or deleted after completing the review, unless retention is required by the publications’ systems and policies.

Confidentiality may only be breached when necessary to investigate credible allegations of misconduct (e.g., fraud, plagiarism), and only to the extent required for due process.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Expectations

Reviewers are expected to:

• Treat manuscripts as privileged and confidential
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations
• Avoid personal criticism and focus on the scholarly work
• Identify missing relevant literature or methodological issues
• Alert editors to suspected ethical concerns, redundant publication, plagiarism, or substantial overlap with other work
• Use clear language and provide actionable suggestions for improvement
• Refer to page/line numbers when giving specific comments

Reviewers must not delegate the review to others or involve colleagues without explicit editorial approval.

7. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Because research communities can be small, potential conflicts may arise. Reviewers must:

• Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest (competitive, collaborative, personal, institutional, or financial)
• Decline review if a conflict could compromise impartiality, or if it may reasonably be perceived to do so
• Inform the editorial office immediately if they discover a conflict after accepting the invitation

Editors also disclose and manage conflicts of interest and must recuse themselves where appropriate.

8. What Reviewers Evaluate

While each manuscript is assessed case-by-case, reviewers commonly evaluate:

• Relevance to the publications scope and compliance with author guidelines
• Scientific merit, originality, and contribution to the field
• Methodological rigor and appropriateness of analysis
• Ethical compliance (approvals, consent, participant protection where applicable)
• Structure, clarity, and coherence (including introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion)
• Adequacy and accuracy of citations and references
• Presentation quality (tables/figures, language, and readability)
• Similarity concerns, redundancy, or plagiarism indicators

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but final decisions are made by the handling editor and Editor-in-Chief.

9. Guidance to Reviewers

Peer review should be robust but respectful. Reviewers are encouraged to:

• Recommend revision when improvement is feasible and provide clear guidance
• Recommend rejection when flaws are fundamental and unlikely to be remedied
• Indicate whether language editing is needed (where relevant)
• Avoid complex wording and write for an international scholarly audience

Reviewer score sheets (where used) are primarily for editorial assessment, while reviewer comments may be shared with authors to support manuscript improvement.

10. Appeals and Ethical Escalation

Publications published by Naif Arab University Publishing House maintain an ethical mechanism for:

• Author appeals of editorial decisions (through defined procedures)
• Investigation of concerns related to research ethics, consent, confidentiality, or misconduct

Where concerns arise, cases may be handled in accordance with Publishing House procedures on corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and allegations of misconduct, aligned with COPE guidance.

11. Becoming a Reviewer

Naif Arab University Publishing House welcomes qualified experts to join reviewer panels across its publications. Interested reviewers may contact the relevant publications editorial office using the publications’ official contact email provided on the publication’s website.