Taiz University Arts and Humanities Journal believes that rigorous peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality of academic publishing and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The Journal therefore follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process. This approach helps ensure the independence and objectivity of the evaluation and minimizes the influence of personal, institutional, or other non-scholarly factors.
The peer review process begins when a manuscript is submitted through the Journal's online submission system. The manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board. This stage assesses whether the submission falls within the Journal's aims and scope and meets the basic requirements for publication.
The initial screening may include assessment of the completeness of the manuscript, compliance with the Journal's formatting requirements, language quality, adherence to publication ethics, and the absence of clear indications of plagiarism or other forms of research misconduct.
Passing the initial screening does not constitute acceptance for publication. It is a preliminary stage designed to determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to peer review. The Editorial Board may reject a manuscript at this stage if it is outside the Journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains fundamental methodological weaknesses, or does not comply with the Journal's publication policies.
After successfully passing the editorial screening, the manuscript is assigned to qualified reviewers with appropriate academic expertise in the relevant field. The Editorial Board selects reviewers based on their scholarly qualifications, research experience, and independence.
The Journal seeks to avoid the appointment of reviewers where an actual or potential conflict of interest may compromise the integrity or impartiality of the review process. Normally, manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to relevant scholarly criteria, including:
Reviewers provide detailed reports containing comments, recommendations, and, where appropriate, suggestions for improving the manuscript.
All reviewer reports are treated as confidential. Editorial decisions are based primarily on the scientific merits of the manuscript and the content of the reviewers' reports, without discrimination based on personal, institutional, geographical, political, or other non-academic considerations.
If there is a substantial disagreement between reviewers, the Editorial Board may seek an additional independent review to support a fair and well-informed decision.
Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board considers the reviewers' reports and may reach one of the following decisions:
Authors are given an appropriate opportunity to respond to reviewers' comments. When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each comment or recommendation has been addressed.
A request for revisions does not guarantee acceptance. The Editorial Board reserves the right to return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers, assign additional reviewers, or conduct an internal editorial assessment before making a final decision.
Where further revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or assessed by the Editorial Board to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and recommendations.
This process may involve more than one round of revision when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the Journal's required standards of scientific quality and publication ethics.
All submitted manuscripts, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and related documents are treated as confidential. They may not be disclosed, shared, or used for purposes outside the publication process.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, or findings obtained through the review process for their own research or personal benefit. Similarly, editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of all submitted materials.
The Journal reserves the right to suspend the review process or reject a manuscript at any stage if evidence of a breach of publication ethics is identified. This includes, but is not limited to:
Such cases will be handled in accordance with the relevant principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The Journal is committed to managing the peer review process efficiently, fairly, and transparently. While every effort is made to minimize the time required for review and editorial decisions, the Journal does not compromise the quality or integrity of the scientific evaluation.
Authors are kept informed of significant developments in the review process through the Journal's online management system.