Guide of Reviwer

Peer Review Guidelines

Before Accepting or Declining an Invitation to Review

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript for the Al-Noor Journal for Digital Heritage and Cultural Preservation (JNDH), reviewers are kindly requested to consider the following:

1. Does the manuscript match your area of expertise?
Please accept the invitation only if the manuscript falls within your academic or professional area of expertise and you are able to provide a thorough and high-quality review.

2. Do you have any potential conflict of interest?
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest to the Editor-in-Chief when responding to the invitation.

3. Do you have sufficient time to complete the review?
Peer review requires careful reading and evaluation. Before accepting the invitation, please ensure that you can complete and submit your review within the agreed deadline.

How to Peer Review for JNDH

The reviewer report should provide a thorough, objective, and constructive assessment of the submitted manuscript. Reviews should contain sufficient detail to help authors improve their work and should not be limited to a few brief comments.

JNDH does not require reviewers to follow a specific report structure. However, reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports under the following headings:

  • Summary

  • Major Issues

  • Minor Issues

  • Recommendation

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments, particularly when revisions are required. Comments intended exclusively for the editorial team and not for the authors should be included in the Confidential Comments to the Editor section.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:

  • Is the research topic relevant to digital heritage, cultural preservation, or related fields covered by JNDH?

  • Are the research questions, objectives, and hypotheses clearly stated and appropriate?

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate sufficient originality, significance, and academic contribution?

  • Is the research methodology appropriate for addressing the research questions and objectives?

  • Is the study design adequately described and logically structured?

  • Where applicable, are ethical approval, permissions, informed consent, or other ethical considerations adequately addressed?

  • Are the methods, materials, data, digital tools, technologies, or sources sufficiently described to allow the research to be understood and, where appropriate, reproduced?

  • Are data analysis procedures and statistical methods appropriate and correctly reported?

  • Are figures, photographs, maps, tables, digital materials, and other visual or multimedia elements clear, relevant, and accurately presented?

  • Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant previous research and scholarly literature?

  • Are the references current, relevant, and accurately cited?

  • Do the cited sources adequately support the claims made in the manuscript?

  • Are citations used appropriately and without excessive or unnecessary self-citation?

  • Do the results adequately support the discussion and conclusions?

  • Are the conclusions consistent with the research objectives and findings?

  • Are the limitations of the study clearly acknowledged?

  • Where applicable, does the manuscript adequately address issues related to the authenticity, sustainability, accessibility, digitization, preservation, documentation, or management of cultural heritage?

  • Is the abstract an accurate and concise representation of the manuscript?

  • Is the manuscript clearly organized and logically presented?

  • Is the academic language clear, precise, and understandable?

Reviewers should focus primarily on the academic quality, originality, methodology, evidence, interpretation, and contribution of the manuscript.

Submission of Reviewer Reports

To ensure an efficient and timely peer-review process, reviewers should submit their reports through the JNDH manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period, they should contact the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Office of JNDH as soon as possible to request an alternative deadline or to decline the invitation.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide objective and constructive feedback that assists authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

At the end of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept

  2. Minor Revision

  3. Major Revision

  4. Reject

  5. Unable to Review

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team based on the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial policies.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts

Peer review for JNDH is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, its data, materials, or any part of its content with individuals outside the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for their own research or personal benefit.

If a reviewer believes that consultation with a qualified colleague is necessary, they should first contact the Editor-in-Chief and obtain permission. The reviewer must identify the colleague involved and ensure that the confidentiality of the manuscript is fully maintained.

Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript or disclose their identity unless this is explicitly permitted by the journal.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation to review a manuscript when a conflict of interest may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their objectivity.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

  1. Having a financial or personal interest related to the subject of the manuscript.

  2. Having a close professional, academic, or personal relationship with one or more of the authors.

  3. Having recently collaborated with one or more of the authors.

  4. Having previously discussed the submitted manuscript with the authors.

  5. Being involved in competing research that could create a conflict of interest.

  6. Feeling unable to provide an objective and impartial assessment of the manuscript.

Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before accepting the review invitation.

Applying to Become a Reviewer

JNDH welcomes applications from qualified researchers and specialists interested in joining its peer-review community.

Reviewers are selected on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis according to their academic expertise, research interests, publication record, and relevant professional experience.

Researchers interested in becoming reviewers are encouraged to register for an account on the JNDH online submission and peer-review system and maintain their academic profile, institutional affiliation, areas of expertise, and contact information up to date.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to select reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the subject and requirements of each submitted manuscript.

We appreciate the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, originality, and academic standards of the Al-Noor Journal for Digital Heritage and Cultural Preservation (JNDH).