MAAREF UNIVERSITY PRESS
Peer Review
The Press uses independent assessment appropriate to the type of work. Scholarly monographs and edited volumes normally receive at least two external expert reviews of the complete manuscript or substantial proposal and sample material, followed by review of the final manuscript where needed. Research chapters and conference papers require at least two independent assessments before final acceptance. Prefaces, interviews, reflections and other nonresearch material may receive editorial review; their type is identified so readers do not mistake it for reviewed research.
Double anonymous review is preferred when feasible. A handling editor may use single anonymous or open review when justified by the field, the material or contributor consent and records that choice. Reviewers are selected for subject knowledge, method expertise and independence. Before an invitation, the editor checks recent coauthorship, shared employment, supervision, financial ties and other interests; reviewers must disclose conflicts promptly and decline when impartiality is compromised.
Reviewers assess originality, argument, method, evidence, literature, clarity, ethical compliance, rights and fit with the volume. The editor considers the reports and may accept, request minor or major revisions, seek another review, invite resubmission or reject. Authors receive the substantive reasons and may submit a point by point response. Materially revised work can return to the original reviewers or other independent specialists. Acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee acceptance of a full chapter or book.
An author may appeal a rejection within 30 days by identifying a process error, factual misunderstanding or substantial new evidence. An unconflicted senior editor reviews the record and provides a reasoned final response. Scientific complaints are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy. Postpublication concerns follow the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern policy. Reviewers and editors must not submit confidential material to external AI services without permission. Reviewers advise, handling editors decide independently and the publisher safeguards the process and final release.
Double anonymous review is preferred when feasible. A handling editor may use single anonymous or open review when justified by the field, the material or contributor consent and records that choice. Reviewers are selected for subject knowledge, method expertise and independence. Before an invitation, the editor checks recent coauthorship, shared employment, supervision, financial ties and other interests; reviewers must disclose conflicts promptly and decline when impartiality is compromised.
Reviewers assess originality, argument, method, evidence, literature, clarity, ethical compliance, rights and fit with the volume. The editor considers the reports and may accept, request minor or major revisions, seek another review, invite resubmission or reject. Authors receive the substantive reasons and may submit a point by point response. Materially revised work can return to the original reviewers or other independent specialists. Acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee acceptance of a full chapter or book.
An author may appeal a rejection within 30 days by identifying a process error, factual misunderstanding or substantial new evidence. An unconflicted senior editor reviews the record and provides a reasoned final response. Scientific complaints are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy. Postpublication concerns follow the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern policy. Reviewers and editors must not submit confidential material to external AI services without permission. Reviewers advise, handling editors decide independently and the publisher safeguards the process and final release.