Peer Review Policy

The peer review process ensures the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing peer review at Journal of Azzaytuna University (JAZU).
1. Scope
This policy applies to all manuscript types submitted to JAZU, including original research, reviews, and case studies.
2. Review Model
The JAZU uses a [Double-blind] peer review model where neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.
3. Reviewer Selection
    3.1 Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise and scholarly experience.
    3.2 Editors ensure there are no conflicts of interest.
    3.3 Reviewers must adhere to confidentiality and ethical guidelines.
4. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
    4.1 Provide fair, timely, and constructive feedback.
    4.2 Evaluate submissions for originality, rigor, clarity, and relevance.
    4.3 Declare any conflict of interest or request recusal when needed.
5. Confidentiality
     5.1 Manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential.
     5.2 Reviewers must not share, copy, or use content before publication.
6. Editorial Responsibilities
     6.1 Editors ensure impartial and efficient peer review.
     6.2 They may seek additional reviews in the case of conflicting opinions.
     6.3 Final decisions rest with the editor-in-chief or assigned editors.
7. Conflict of Interest
     7.1 All participants (authors, reviewers, editors) must disclose conflicts personal, financial, or institutional.

    7.2 Manuscripts by editorial board members are handled independently to ensure objectivity.
8. Appeals and Complaints
    Authors may appeal decisions by contacting the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed independently to ensure fairness.
9. Research Misconduct
   Allegations of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, etc.) are investigated per Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE] guidelines. Proven misconduct may result in manuscript rejection or retraction.
10. Reviewer Acknowledgement
    Reviewers may be acknowledged publicly on an annual basis, subject to the confidentiality policy or review model used.
11. Review Quality Monitoring
    We monitor reviewer performance and provide feedback where necessary. Persistent poor-quality reviews may result in removal from our reviewer list.