Peer Review Process

Papers submitted to ِAlostath are subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is original.

Manuscripts are sent out for review. through the peer review process by high-quality peer-review standards that is applied to all manuscripts submitted to this journal.

Alostath has a 'double blind' review process: Authors are not told who reviewed their paper. The peer referees’ identity remains unknown to the authors throughout the review process.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of a paper, and to judge the papers on grounds of originality and urgency. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s).

Peer reviewers will have possible options, for each article:

In addition, papers may be rejected directly by the Chief Editor if judged to be out of scope or if scientifically or formally sub-standard.

  1. Accept Submission (i.e. no need for any revision)
  2. Revisions Required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested revisions)
  3. 5. Decline Submission (i.e. if the manuscript is substandard)

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: to ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed

To facilitate rapid publication,. Lingual revision may be required if the language or style is sub-standard.

Reviewers have 2 months for review and after 2 months a new reviewer will be chosen to review the submissions. Authors also are given 2 months for revision and revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions if not returned within that period.