Peer Review Policy

Scientific Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Future Studies – Sirte University adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors, thereby promoting objectivity, independence, and integrity throughout the scientific evaluation process.

First: Preliminary Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board to ensure their alignment with the journal's scope and objectives, compliance with submission requirements and basic publication guidelines, and fulfillment of preliminary formatting requirements.

Passing the preliminary screening does not constitute acceptance of a manuscript for publication. The Editorial Board reserves the right not to send a manuscript for peer review if it fails to meet the journal's requirements or is inconsistent with its scope and objectives.

Second: Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who specialize in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on their academic specialization, expertise, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript, while ensuring their independence and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest.

Third: Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently in accordance with the journal's approved scientific evaluation criteria, which include:

• The originality, novelty, and scientific significance of the research topic.
• The clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, or hypotheses.
• The clarity and depth of the future-oriented or foresight dimension of the study.
• The quality of the theoretical framework and review of previous studies.
• The soundness of the research methodology, procedures, and instruments.
• The accuracy of data analysis, presentation of findings, and interpretation of results.
• The logical consistency of the discussion, conclusions, and recommendations.
• The accuracy of citations and the quality of references.
• The linguistic quality and overall academic presentation.

Reviewers are required 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 include:

• Acceptance without revisions.
• Acceptance subject to minor revisions.
• Major revisions required, followed by further peer review.
• Rejection of 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 Further Peer 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 any other appropriate editorial action.

The Editorial Board may also resubmit the revised manuscript to the reviewers to verify the extent to which the authors have addressed the requested revisions, whenever required by the nature of the editorial decision.

Sixth: Confidentiality of the Review Process

The journal maintains the confidentiality of manuscripts, peer review reports, correspondence, and all documents related to the evaluation process.

Reviewers must not disclose the contents of manuscripts or use any information contained therein for personal or professional gain. They are also prohibited from communicating directly with authors regarding the manuscript.

Seventh: Editorial Independence and Appeals

Editorial decisions are based on relevant scientific and editorial considerations, without discrimination on the grounds of gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or any other non-academic considerations.

Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they have valid scientific or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Appeals must be submitted to the Editorial Board, clearly stating the reasons for the appeal. The Board shall consider such requests in accordance with its approved procedures.

Eighth: Compliance with Review and Revision Deadlines

The Editorial Board strives to complete peer review and scientific evaluation procedures within reasonable timeframes to ensure the regularity of the editorial process and avoid unnecessary delays in reaching decisions on submitted manuscripts.

The timeframes for these procedures are as follows:

1. Reviewers: Reviewers are granted up to 21 days from the date of receiving the manuscript to complete the review and submit their reports to the Editorial Board. This period may be extended by up to an additional 7 days, when necessary, in coordination with the Editorial Board.

2. Author Revisions: Authors are required to complete the requested revisions within a period not exceeding 15 days from the date of notification, unless the Editorial Board grants an extension based on a justified request. The applicable timeframe shall be determined by the Editorial Board according to the nature of the requested revisions.

3. Delays or Inability to Complete the Procedures: If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they are requested to notify the Editorial Board as soon as possible. Authors may also request an extension of the revision deadline for justified reasons. The Editorial Board shall consider such requests in light of the circumstances of each case.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to modify the specified timeframes or grant additional extensions whenever necessary, taking into consideration the nature of the manuscript, peer review requirements, and the journal's operational circumstances.