Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Future Studies – Sirte University (JFSS) follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. This system is intended to promote objectivity, independence, and integrity throughout the scholarly evaluation process.

First: Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board to ensure that they are consistent with the journal’s scope and objectives, meet the submission requirements and basic publication conditions, and satisfy the initial formal requirements.

Passing the initial screening does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The Editorial Board may decide not to send a manuscript for peer review if it does not meet the journal’s requirements or is not consistent with its scope and objectives.

Second: Selection of Reviewers

A manuscript that passes the initial screening is assigned to at least two independent specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on their specialization, expertise, and the relevance of their field to the subject of the manuscript, while ensuring independence and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Third: Evaluation of Manuscripts

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently, taking into consideration the originality and significance of the topic, methodological soundness, quality of analysis, accuracy of results and conclusions, and compliance with established scientific and academic standards.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear and constructive comments and to notify the Editorial Board if they are unable to complete the review or if any conflict of interest arises.

Fourth: Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board makes the appropriate editorial decision, which may be:

• Accept the manuscript without revisions.
• Accept the manuscript subject to minor revisions.
• Request major revisions and resubmission for further review.
• Reject the manuscript.

A request for revisions or further peer review does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript. The final decision regarding publication remains the responsibility of the Editorial Board.

Fifth: Third Reviewer and Re-Review

In the event of a substantial disagreement between the two reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may refer the manuscript to a third reviewer or take another appropriate editorial action.

The manuscript may also be returned to the reviewers to assess the authors’ response to the requested revisions, where warranted by the nature of the editorial decision.

Sixth: Confidentiality of the Peer Review Process

The journal maintains the confidentiality of manuscripts, peer review reports, correspondence, and documents associated with the evaluation process.

Reviewers must not disclose the contents of a manuscript or use information contained therein for personal or professional benefit. Reviewers must also refrain from communicating directly with the authors regarding the manuscript.

Seventh: Independence of Editorial Decisions and Appeals

Editorial decisions are based on relevant scientific and editorial considerations, without discrimination on the basis of gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or any other considerations unrelated to scientific standards.

Authors have the right to request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they have justified scientific or procedural grounds. Such requests must be submitted to the Editorial Board and should clearly state the reasons for the appeal. The Editorial Board will consider the request in accordance with its established procedures.

Eighth: Review and Revision Timelines

The Editorial Board encourages reviewers to complete the peer review process as promptly as possible in order to ensure the timely evaluation of manuscripts and avoid unnecessary delays in reaching editorial decisions.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they are requested to notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible so that the Board can take the appropriate action based on the circumstances of each case.

Authors are also expected to respond to the reviewers’ comments and requested revisions and to resubmit the revised version within the period specified by the Editorial Board for each case. Authors should clearly indicate the revisions made and provide a clear response to the reviewers’ comments.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to establish specific timeframes for completing the peer review stages or submitting revisions, depending on the nature of the manuscript and the journal’s working circumstances and procedures.