Reviewer Guidelines

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review, please consider the following:

• Expertise: Ensure that the manuscript falls within your area of academic or methodological expertise.
• Conflict of Interest: Declare any personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of your review.
• Availability: Accept the invitation only if you are able to complete the review within the timeframe specified by the journal.
• Objectivity: Ensure that you can evaluate the manuscript fairly and independently, without prejudice or personal bias.

If you are unable to review the manuscript, please decline the invitation promptly so that the Editor can assign another qualified reviewer.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss the manuscript with others without prior permission from the Editor;
• contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript;
• use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or findings for personal or professional advantage; or
• disclose information concerning the manuscript or review process to unauthorized parties.

If assistance from another researcher is considered necessary, prior approval must be obtained from the Editor.

3. Conducting the Review

Reviewers should read the entire manuscript carefully to understand its objectives, theoretical foundation, methodology, findings, and overall contribution.

The review should consider whether the manuscript:

• addresses a relevant issue within the journal's Focus and Scope;
• presents a clear research problem, objective, or research question;
• demonstrates originality and scholarly contribution;
• engages critically with relevant and current literature;
• uses an appropriate and sufficiently rigorous methodology;
• presents results clearly and systematically;
• provides a discussion supported by the findings and relevant scholarship;
• presents conclusions consistent with the evidence;
• demonstrates theoretical and/or practical implications for Arabic applied linguistics; and
• is written and organized with appropriate academic clarity.

Reviewers should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or scholarly contribution of the manuscript and minor issues related to clarity, presentation, language, or formatting.

4. Preparing the Review Report

The review report should help both the Editor and the authors understand the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and identify the revisions necessary to improve its scholarly quality.

Reviewer comments should be:

• specific rather than general;
• constructive rather than dismissive;
• evidence-based and academically justified;
• respectful and professional in tone; and
• sufficiently clear to enable authors to respond appropriately.

Whenever identifying a weakness, reviewers are encouraged to explain why the issue is important and what revision is required.

5. Review Checklist

Overall Assessment
Provide a concise summary of the manuscript and an overall assessment of its relevance, originality, scholarly significance, and contribution.

Title
Assess whether the title is clear, specific, informative, and accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.

Abstract and Keywords
Evaluate whether the abstract adequately presents the research problem, objective, methodology, principal findings, contribution, and conclusion, and whether the keywords appropriately represent the study.

Introduction
Assess the clarity of the research background, state of the art, research gap, research problem, objectives, novelty, and scholarly contribution.

Methods
Evaluate whether the research design, participants or data sources, instruments, data collection procedures, analytical methods, validity or trustworthiness procedures, and ethical considerations are appropriate and sufficiently described.

Results
Assess whether the findings are presented clearly, systematically, accurately, and in accordance with the research objectives or questions.

Discussion
Evaluate whether the authors adequately interpret the findings, relate them to relevant theories and previous studies, demonstrate novelty, and explain theoretical and practical implications.

Conclusion
Assess whether the conclusion directly addresses the research objectives or questions and clearly states the main contribution and implications of the study.

Tables and Figures
Check whether tables, figures, graphs, and illustrations are necessary, readable, appropriately numbered, and discussed in the text.

Academic Language and Presentation
Assess whether the manuscript is written in clear and appropriate academic language and is logically organized.

References
Assess whether the references are relevant, sufficiently current, academically credible, and consistent with the journal's citation style.

6. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should immediately inform the Editor if they identify or suspect:

• plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate image or data manipulation;
• unethical research involving participants;
• inappropriate authorship practices;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest; or
• any other potential breach of research or publication ethics.

Reviewers should report their concerns directly to the Editor rather than attempting to investigate or contact the authors.

7. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide a recommendation using the options available in the journal's review system.

The recommendation should be consistent with the issues identified in the review report and should be sufficiently justified, particularly when substantial revision or rejection is recommended.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory rather than determinative.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor, taking into consideration the reviewers' reports, recommendations, authors' responses, and the journal's editorial standards.

The Editor may:

• request additional revisions;
• seek clarification from a reviewer;
• invite an additional reviewer when necessary; or
• make a decision that differs from an individual reviewer's recommendation when supported by appropriate editorial considerations.

9. Web of Science Reviewer Recognition

HuRuf Journal recognizes peer reviewing as an important scholarly contribution.

Reviewers may record their completed peer-review activities in their Web of Science Researcher Profile, subject to the journal's confidentiality requirements and the recognition options available through Web of Science.

When recording a review, reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript, authors, review report, and editorial process. No confidential manuscript information should be publicly disclosed without authorization.

Reviewer recognition should acknowledge the scholarly contribution of the reviewer without compromising the journal's double-blind peer-review process.