Peer Review Process

Ta’lim al-‘Arabiyyah: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab dan Kebahasaaraban adheres to a double-blind peer-review system that ensures fairness, accuracy, and high academic standards in every published article. In this system, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process to avoid potential bias related to the author’s institutional affiliation, country of origin, or previous publications. All manuscripts are evaluated based solely on their scholarly quality, originality, and contribution to the field of Arabic language education and linguistics. This review policy follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Each submitted manuscript will undergo several stages of rigorous evaluation, as described below:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Every newly submitted manuscript is first screened by the Editorial Team to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope focusing on Arabic language education and linguistics—as well as adherence to formatting, bibliographic, and ethical standards. The journal employs Turnitin software to check for plagiarism, and manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% will be automatically rejected. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements will be declined without external review, and the authors will be notified via email. Manuscripts deemed suitable will proceed to the next review stage.

Step 2: Peer Review (2–4 Months)

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a Section Editor, who will send them to at least two qualified reviewers one external reviewer and one internal editor with relevant expertise for evaluation under the double-blind review system. The reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical and methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, and clarity of presentation. Based on their assessments, the reviewers will recommend one of the following decisions:

  1. Accepted as it is.
  2. Accepted with minor revision.
  3. Accepted with major revision; or
  4. Rejected.

If reviewers’ reports differ significantly, the Section Editor may invite an additional reviewer to ensure balanced evaluation before making a decision.

Step 3: Revision Stage (2 Weeks)

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions within the specified time frame. The revised manuscript will then be re-evaluated by the Editorial Team. If further improvement is needed, the Section Editor may request additional revisions.

Step 4: Final Decision

After the revision stage, the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with Section Editors and the Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection based on reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s overall improvement. Once accepted, a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) will be issued to the author, and the manuscript will proceed to the final layout and publication stages.

The entire review process, from submission to publication, typically takes between two months and one year, depending on the complexity of revisions, the responsiveness of authors, and the journal’s publication schedule. The Editor-in-Chief determines the sequence and timing of publication, taking into account the submission date, thematic relevance, and diversity of authorship.