Review Workflow
All submissions undergo a four-stage, double-blind peer review process:
|
Stage |
Action |
Timeline |
|
1. Editorial Screening |
Initial check for: scope match, formatting compliance, and anti-plagiarism (>80% originality) |
3–5 business days |
|
2. Peer Review |
Evaluation by 3+ independent experts (selected based on Scopus h-index ≥5) |
15–30 days |
|
3. Decision |
Editorial board consolidates reviewer reports into one of four verdicts (see Section 3) |
5 days post-reviews |
|
4. Author Notification |
Detailed feedback + publication timeline sent via OJS |
Within 72 hrs of decision |
- Evaluation Criteria
Submissions are assessed on:
- Scholarly Rigor
o Originality (novel theoretical/practical contributions)
o Methodological soundness (reproducible design, robust analytics)
o Data transparency (FAIR principles compliance)
- Practical Impact
o Relevance to Arab business/administrative challenges
o Policy/corporate applicability (SDG linkages preferred)
- Presentation Quality
o Clarity of arguments (structured abstracts, bilingual readiness)
o Adherence to APA 7th/Sakkal Majalla formatting
- Ethics Compliance
- COPE guidelines (authorship, conflicts of interest)
- Proper citation of Scopus/WoS-indexed literature (≥50% of references)
Editorial Decisions
Authors receive one of four formal decisions:
|
Decision Type |
Requirements |
Resubmission Deadline |
|
Accept as-Is |
No revisions needed (rare for initial submissions) |
– |
|
Minor Revisions |
Address typographical/formatting edits (no new data analysis) |
14 days |
|
Major Revisions |
Substantive changes required (e.g., additional experiments, expanded literature) |
60 days |
|
Reject |
Fatal flaws in methodology or out-of-scope |
– (may appeal) |
Transparency Measures
- Reviewer Reports: Anonymized comments + editorial synthesis shared with authors.
- Timeliness: Guaranteed feedback within 90 days max (from submission to decision).
- Post-Acceptance:
o Preprint deposited in ARADO’s repository (optional).
o Complimentary Electronic Copy: 1 free issue mailed to corresponding author.
Scopus/Clarivate Alignment
- Reviewer Pool: ≥30% international experts (non-Arab institutions).
- Bias Mitigation: AI-assisted reviewer matching (ORCID-based expertise mapping).
- Continuous Improvement: Annual audit of review quality by ARADO’s Ethics Committee.