Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Libya for Geographical Studies (JLGS) adopts a peer review system aimed at ensuring the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published research, while promoting objectivity, transparency, and integrity throughout all stages of the review and evaluation process.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with basic formal requirements, and suitability for peer review. Passing the initial screening does not constitute acceptance for publication or guarantee that the manuscript will be sent for peer review.
Following the initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to specialized and independent reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and areas of expertise, while ensuring impartiality and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest.
The journal adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author throughout the peer review process. This approach contributes to enhancing the independence and objectivity of the evaluation.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to established scientific criteria, including the originality and novelty of the topic, its scientific significance, clarity of objectives, soundness of methodology, accuracy of analysis, validity of results and conclusions, quality of references and citations, and compliance with research and publication ethics.
Reviewers are required to provide clear, objective, and constructive reports, including detailed comments and an appropriate recommendation regarding the manuscript. Reviewer reports constitute an important element in the editorial decision-making process, while the Editorial Board retains full responsibility for the final decision to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it.
Authors may be required to make major or minor revisions based on the reviewers’ comments. In such cases, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response explaining how the comments raised in the review reports have been addressed. The Editorial Board may resubmit the revised manuscript to the reviewers to assess the extent to which the requested revisions have been adequately addressed.
In cases where the reviewers’ reports differ substantially, the Editorial Board may seek the opinion of an additional reviewer or take any other appropriate action in accordance with the journal’s policy and the nature of the manuscript. The Editorial Board is not obliged to follow the recommendation of any particular reviewer.
The journal is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the peer review process. Reviewers may not use information, data, or ideas contained in unpublished manuscripts for personal or research purposes, nor disclose such information to any third party without permission from the Editorial Board.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline to review a manuscript if they have a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation. Reviewers may also decline an invitation if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe.
The Editorial Board seeks to complete the peer review process as efficiently as possible while allowing reviewers sufficient time to conduct a careful and thorough scientific evaluation, and to communicate editorial decisions to authors in a timely manner.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to make the final decision regarding the publication of any manuscript based on the quality of the research, its relevance to the journal’s scope and editorial policies, the reviewers’ reports, and the extent to which the authors have addressed the reviewers’ comments and requested revisions.
The journal emphasizes that the peer review process is intended to improve the quality of research and ensure its scientific integrity. It is not intended to exclude scientific opinions or findings that differ from those of the reviewers, provided that such opinions and findings are supported by sound methodology and appropriate evidence.
