Reviewer Guidelines

The Al-Ameen Journal of Humanities (AJH) greatly values the role of reviewers in upholding the quality and reputation of the journal. We rely on the professionalism, expertise, and dedication of our reviewers to ensure that the manuscripts we publish meet the highest academic standards in the field of humanities. AJH covers a wide range of disciplines, including but not limited to literature, philosophy, history, sociology, and related areas. Our review process seeks not only to maintain discipline-specific standards but also to promote interdisciplinary dialogue and intellectual exchange. This guide provides detailed instructions to assist you in conducting thorough, constructive, and fair manuscript reviews.

  1. Timeliness in Review

Timely reviews are essential for the smooth functioning of the academic publishing process. Many of our contributors are early-career researchers whose promotions or tenure may depend on the timely publication of their work. We ask that reviewers make every effort to meet the deadlines set for their reviews. If, for any reason, you are unable to complete your review within the allotted time, please notify the managing editor as soon as possible and provide an estimated completion date. Failure to meet deadlines can delay the entire review process.

  1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to AJH are considered confidential. Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript and its content with the same level of confidentiality as they would any sensitive document. You must not discuss, share, or disseminate the manuscript or its findings to others without the express permission of the journal's editorial team. If you need to consult a colleague or expert for advice during the review process, please first inform the editor and obtain their permission.

  1. Conflict of Interest

To ensure the integrity and fairness of the review process, we ask reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. A conflict of interest might arise if you have a personal or professional relationship with the author(s), or if you have a vested interest in the outcome of the review. If you recognize the author's work, or if there is any other reason that could bias your review, please contact the editor immediately. In some cases, recognizing an author’s work does not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing, but transparency with the editor is crucial.

  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the ethical integrity of published research. If, during your review, you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or any other form of unethical behavior, you are obligated to report this to the editor immediately. AJH checks accepted papers against a database of published works, but we rely on reviewers’ expertise to flag any ethical concerns that might not be caught by automated tools.

  1. Scope of the Manuscript

AJH is an interdisciplinary journal that welcomes contributions from various subfields of the humanities. However, manuscripts should be accessible to an interdisciplinary audience. When reviewing a manuscript, please consider whether the paper's ideas, arguments, and language are clear to a broader readership. While the paper may adhere to discipline-specific terminology, it should also strive to engage a wider scholarly audience.

  1. Providing Constructive Feedback

The primary goal of the review process is to help authors improve their manuscripts. AJH prides itself on a developmental review process that provides useful feedback, even when a manuscript is rejected. When providing feedback:

  • Be specific: Point out both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Explain why you believe certain aspects of the paper are strong or need improvement.
  • Be constructive: Even if the manuscript has significant shortcomings, offer suggestions for how the author can address these issues in revisions or future work.
  • Be polite: Avoid harsh or personal criticism. Your comments should focus on the manuscript, not the author.
  • Be thorough: The more detailed your feedback, the more helpful it will be to both the author and the editor. When possible, cite relevant literature or examples to support your critique.
  1. Comments to Authors vs. Comments to Editors

When writing your review, remember that your comments to the authors and the editors serve different purposes:

  • Comments to Authors: These should focus on how the manuscript can be improved. Do not include your final recommendation (accept, revise, reject) in your comments to the authors. Your comments should be professional, objective, and constructive. Be sure to address specific sections of the manuscript (by citing page numbers) to help the author understand your feedback.
  • Comments to Editors: In addition to your detailed feedback for the authors, provide the editor with a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Your recommendation might fall into one of the following categories:
    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with little or no revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is strong, but certain elements need clarification or refinement. These revisions can typically be completed quickly.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential, but significant changes are required. These revisions may involve reworking arguments, addressing methodological concerns, or restructuring the paper.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form, and the revisions required are too extensive to proceed with the submission.
  • Be sure that your recommendation to the editor aligns with the tone and content of your feedback to the author. Avoid making contradictory statements.
  1. Guidance on Writing Style and Clarity

While AJH welcomes submissions from international scholars, you may encounter manuscripts written by authors whose first language is not English. In such cases, please try to distinguish between issues of language and issues of substance. Poor language can often be improved with revision or editorial assistance, whereas problems with ideas or methodology may require more significant changes. If you feel that language issues are hindering the clarity of the manuscript, please include this in your feedback to the editor. However, do not let language issues overshadow your evaluation of the manuscript’s intellectual contributions.

  1. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript offer new insights or perspectives? Does it make a significant contribution to the existing literature?
  • Argumentation: Is the argument clear, coherent, and well-supported by evidence?
  • Methodology: For empirical papers, is the methodology sound and appropriate for the research questions posed?
  • Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion?
  • Interdisciplinary Relevance: If the manuscript crosses disciplinary boundaries, does it do so in a way that is accessible to scholars from other fields?
  1. Final Recommendation

Once your review is complete, you will be asked to provide your recommendation to the editor. Please keep in mind that your review serves two purposes:

  1. To provide authors with constructive feedback: Your comments will help them improve their manuscript, regardless of whether it is ultimately accepted or rejected.
  2. To assist the editorial team in making a decision: Your feedback will guide the editor in determining the suitability of the manuscript for publication in AJH.

If the manuscript requires revisions, please specify what needs to be changed. Be as detailed as possible to ensure that the author can make the necessary improvements.

  1. Summary of Responsibilities
  • Meet deadlines and communicate promptly with the editorial team if there are any delays.
  • Maintain confidentiality and handle manuscripts with care.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns.
  • Provide thoughtful, detailed, and constructive feedback.
  • Offer your recommendation to the editor, while keeping feedback to authors constructive and professional.

By adhering to these guidelines, you help AJH maintain its reputation for publishing high-quality research in the humanities and promoting scholarly discourse across disciplines. We greatly appreciate your time and expertise.