Studies in

Description of Peer Review Process
https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. The aim has been to make them generic so that they can be applied across disciplines. Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process, but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and bases these guidelines, in part, on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.
 

Studies in Arabic Narratology (SAN) accept submission via its online submission system. The submitted manuscript must be accompanied with a Authors A form (http://san.khu.ac.ir/files/site1/files/commitment_to_ethics_publishing_.pdf ) for publishing ethics, granting material rights, declaring that there is no opposition to the interests of shareholders and arranging the authors for the article, evaluate on any issues relating to the (SAN) editorial policies and declare if they have any competing interests. The authors of received manuscripts are also asked to submit a copyright declaration of competing interests as part of their manuscript.

Article submitted to the Journal is sent out to peer reviewers, although submissions that are out of scope for the Journal or are of an unacceptably low standard may be rejected without review. Potentially suitable manuscripts will generally be reviewed by three experts in the field with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Specialist statistical advisers are used when necessary to ensure that the statistical reasoning in manuscripts is sound. Reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests, if any.

Editorial decisions are made based on the manuscript’s validity and coherence, as judged by the peer reviewers. In addition to their comments for the authors, reviewers are asked whether the research is sound and coherent, the topic interesting and the writing of an acceptable quality. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis that peer reviewers are in accordance with one another, or that at least there is no strong dissenting view. In cases where there is strong disagreement, either among the peer review or between the authors and the peer reviewers, advice is sought from an editorial board member or a researcher of similar standing.   

The detailed Journal peer review process is based on The following chart: