Peer Review Process

MMSJ – University of Misurata follows a double-blind review process. The identities of both reviewers and authors remain confidential. Reviewers must treat all manuscript content as confidential and refrain from using it for personal gain.

The journal follows a strict peer review policy as follows:

  1. Initial Assessment: The editorial team conducts a preliminary evaluation for scope and compliance. Non-compliant manuscripts may be rejected at this stage (2 weeks).
  2. Reviewer Selection: Two to three qualified reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise.
  3. Reviewer Invitation: Reviewers are invited and asked to declare any conflicts of interest and confirm their availability to meet the review deadline.
  4. Conducting the Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
    • Originality and significance of the research
    • Clarity and rigor of methodology
    • Reliability of data and results
    • Coherence and relevance of discussion and conclusions
    • Quality of writing and adherence to submission guidelines
  5. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers submit detailed, constructive reports and recommend one of the following:
    • Acceptance without revision
    • Acceptance with minor revisions
    • Acceptance with major revisions
    • Rejection
  6. Editorial Decision: The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewer reports. Authors are notified of the decision and provided with reviewer feedback.
  7. Revision and Resubmission: If revisions are required, authors may resubmit their revised manuscript, which may be subjected to further review.
  8. Final Acceptance: Manuscripts that fulfill all editorial and scientific requirements are formally accepted for publication.

Purpose of Peer Review

  • Assessing the originality, relevance, and scientific accuracy of submissions.
  • Providing constructive feedback to improve the quality of manuscripts.
  • Ensuring alignment with the journal’s standards and the expectations of the academic community.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Reviewer Responsibilities:
    • Provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations.
    • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
    • Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript.
    • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
    • Decline to review if any relationship may compromise impartiality.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request stating their reasons. The editorial board will review the appeal and issue a final decision. Complaints regarding the peer review process may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation.

Double-blind review system

  • Initial screening (1-2 weeks): The editorial board verifies that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal's scope, conforms to the template, and does not exceed the permitted level of plagiarism. At this stage, it may be returned to the authors for correction if minor changes are needed, or the manuscript may be rejected if it violates any of these requirements.
  • Manuscript review: The manuscript is reviewed by two experts, and if they disagree on whether to accept or reject it, a third reviewer is appointed to decide the matter, and the final decision is made by the editorial board (4-6 weeks).
  • Possible review outcomes:
    • Acceptance (with/without minor corrections)
    • Major corrections required, followed by re-evaluation
    • Rejection