Ma’rifa implements a rigorous, transparent, and objective peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of all published manuscripts.

1. Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with the author guidelines, and overall academic quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without proceeding to external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Ma’rifa applies a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure an unbiased and fair evaluation process.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to knowledge
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Methodological rigor
• Clarity and organization of the manuscript
• Quality of analysis and discussion
• Use of relevant and up-to-date references

5. Review Outcomes

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial decision may be:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
• Reject

6. Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the revised version within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the editor based on reviewers’ recommendations and the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

9. Ethical Compliance

Reviewers are expected to report any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or data manipulation, to the editorial team.