Peer Review Policy Al-Shifa Journal of Ophthalmology

The Al-Shifa Journal of Ophthalmology is committed to upholding high standards of academic integrity and quality in the publication of research. To ensure unbiased and fair evaluation, the journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This policy enhances objectivity, minimizes potential conflicts of interest, and ensures an impartial assessment of manuscripts.

Review Process

1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess its suitability and compliance with the journal’s scope, format, and basic requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors without review.
2. Anonymization: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, all identifying information about the authors (names, affiliations, acknowledgments) is removed. Authors are also requested to avoid any self-identifying references in the manuscript itself.
3. Reviewer Selection: The editorial team assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully chosen to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that they bring specific expertise to the evaluation of the manuscript.
4. Double-Blind Review Process: In this stage, the reviewers assess the manuscript without knowledge of the authors' identities, and the authors remain unaware of the reviewers' identities. Reviewers evaluate the submission based on its scientific quality, relevance, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field of ophthalmology.
5. Review Outcome and Decision: Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editorial team decides to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. Feedback is provided to the authors, including detailed, constructive comments from the reviewers to guide any necessary revisions. In cases of conflicting recommendations, additional reviewers may be consulted, or a final decision may be made by the editor-in-chief.
6. Revisions and Final Review: If revisions are required, authors must resubmit their revised manuscript with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may undergo further review to ensure all issues have been adequately addressed.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All materials associated with the double-blind peer review process are treated as confidential, and reviewers are required to adhere to ethical standards, including a commitment to maintain confidentiality and to provide objective, fair, and constructive feedback. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing any details of the manuscript or using any information derived from it in their own research until it is published.