Peer Review Process

1. Initial Manuscript Submission

Authors must first submit their manuscript through the Rumah Jurnal Manuscript Submission System .

At this stage, the Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements and is suitable for further editorial consideration. Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will receive further instructions by email, including access to submit the full-text manuscript through OJS.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Before being sent for external peer review, each manuscript is screened by the Editor. The initial screening considers:

• compliance with the journal's Focus and Scope ;
• compliance with the Author Guidelines and official manuscript template;
• originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• clarity of the research problem, objectives, and academic argument;
• adequacy of the research design or conceptual framework;
• quality and appropriateness of academic language;
• completeness and relevance of references; and
• compliance with basic research and publication ethics.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, do not meet basic scholarly standards, or substantially fail to comply with the journal's requirements may be declined at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

3. Language and Manuscript Requirements

Manuscripts may be written in Arabic or English and must use clear, accurate, and appropriate academic language.

Submitted manuscripts must be original, must not have been previously published, and must not be under consideration by another journal.

To preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process, the review manuscript must not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could directly reveal the identity of the authors.

4. Similarity and Originality Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to a similarity and originality check using appropriate similarity-detection software.

The similarity report is evaluated by the Editor in context. Similarity scores alone do not automatically determine whether plagiarism has occurred. Manuscripts containing substantial unattributed overlap, duplicate publication, or other potential ethical concerns may be returned to the authors or rejected in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening and similarity check are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject and methodology of the manuscript.

HuRuf Journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, clarity of results, strength of discussion, academic presentation, ethical considerations, and contribution to Arabic applied linguistics.

Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts and review reports as confidential documents. The journal's reviewer panel can be viewed on the Reviewers page.

6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, professional, and evidence-based comments that help the Editor evaluate the manuscript and assist authors in improving their work.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative. The Editor evaluates the recommendations together with the reviewers' substantive comments and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

When reviewer assessments differ substantially, or when additional expertise is required, the Editor may invite a third reviewer or seek further expert evaluation.

7. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address the reviewers' and Editor's comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified in the editorial communication.

Authors should provide a clear response to the review comments, indicating how each relevant issue has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Where a suggestion is not followed, authors should provide an appropriate scholarly justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the Editor considers additional review necessary.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding a manuscript is made by the Editor, taking into consideration:

• the reviewers' reports and recommendations;
• the quality and completeness of the authors' revisions;
• the manuscript's originality and scholarly contribution;
• methodological and theoretical rigor;
• compliance with research and publication ethics; and
• the journal's editorial standards and Focus and Scope.

The Editor may consult the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board, or additional experts where further consideration is required.

The final editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer's recommendation when supported by appropriate scholarly and editorial considerations.

9. Acceptance and Publication

Manuscripts that receive a final acceptance decision proceed to the editorial production stage, which may include copyediting, language editing, layout preparation, proofreading, metadata verification, and final publication preparation.

The assignment of accepted articles to a particular issue is determined by the Editor based on editorial readiness, issue planning, thematic relevance, and the journal's publication schedule.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not automatically guarantee publication in a specific issue.

Peer Review Workflow