PEER REVIEW POLICY

The Libyan International Journal of Natural Sciences (LIJNS) is committed to publishing high-quality research. To achieve this, we use a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of scientific merit, originality, and relevance. This policy outlines the procedures and ethical guidelines that govern this process.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process:

LIJNS employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the authors' identities and the reviewers' identities remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach helps to minimize bias and ensure that the evaluation focuses solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.

Submission:

Authors are required to submit their manuscripts through the online submission system, ensuring all identifying information is removed from the manuscript file itself. This includes author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and any other details that might reveal their identity. Funding information should be included in the cover letter, but not in the manuscript.

Authors should also avoid self-referencing their previous work in a way that could easily identify them. If self-citation is unavoidable, it should be done in a neutral third-person manner (e.g., instead of "As we have previously shown...", use "Previous research has shown...").

Editorial Assessment:

Upon receiving a submission, the Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript for its suitability for the journal's scope and overall quality. Manuscripts deemed out of scope or lacking sufficient quality will be rejected without further review.

Reviewer Selection:

The Editor-in-Chief selects at least two expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen from the journal's database and/or identified through literature searches. Potential reviewers are contacted and asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review invitation.

Review Process:

Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and are asked to evaluate it based on its scientific rigor, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. They provide detailed feedback and recommendations to the editor, including suggestions for improvement and a recommendation on whether to accept, reject, or revise the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to strict confidentiality and refrain from sharing the manuscript or its contents with anyone.

Editorial Decision:

The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' comments and makes a final decision on the manuscript. The decision can be:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is or with minor revisions.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and will be reconsidered after resubmission.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Communication of Decision:

The Editor-in-Chief communicates the decision to the authors, along with the anonymized reviewer comments. If revisions are requested, the authors are given a specific timeframe for resubmission.

Resubmission and Final Decision:

Revised manuscripts are reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the original reviewers or new reviewers. The final decision is based on the authors' response to the reviewers' comments and the overall quality of the revised manuscript.

Appeals:

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and should clearly state the grounds for the appeal.

This policy aims to ensure a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review process that upholds the highest standards of scientific integrity and contributes to the dissemination of high-quality research in the natural sciences.