1. The research submission process: 

The author must submit the research to the North Journal of Humanities website. The author is responsible for ensuring all co-authors meet authorship criteria, are listed in the proper order, and have read and approved the submitted research.

 

2. Editorial review by the journal's editor-in-chief: 

The editor-in-chief of the North Journal of Humanities confirms that the researcher has followed all publication guidelines outlined in the author's guide available on the journal's website.

 

3. Review by the relevant editorial board member (initial reading):

 The research is anonymously ( without the authors' names)sent to the editor most knowledgeable about its scientific subject for a comprehensive review. The editor assesses whether the research meets the journal's publication criteria, including:

  • The research topic is within the research areas of the journal.
  • The author’s adherence to the journal’s publication instructions.
  • The use of scientific language in the research.
  • The originality of the research.
  • The research conforms to the standards of scientific research ethics.
  • The citation rate.
  • The research is not submitted to another journal.

4. Invitation of referees

The Referees are invited based on their expertise and research interests, with replacements sought if initial invitations are declined.

 

5.  The refereeing process 

The refereeing process includes an exchange between the editors and referees. After the referees receive the research from the editor, they usually submit the results of the refereeing within two weeks.

The referees must review the following criteria:

  •  Review the methodology to ensure its integrity, identify scientific errors, and evaluate the design and tools used.
  • Assessing the importance and validity of the results to judge the significance of the research.
  •  Evaluating the originality of the work in the context of scientific research contributions.
  •  Checking the appropriateness and currency of references, identifying any undocumented or inaccurate citations.
  •  Recommend or reject the publication of the research.
  •  Submitting the arbitration result to the journal with recommendations (accept, reject, minor, and significant modifications).

 

6. Evaluating the arbitration results:

In the event of minor or significant modifications suggested by the arbitrators, the feedback is conveyed to the researcher along with constructive comments to enhance the research's quality. Once the revised version is received from the author, it undergoes further evaluation by the arbitrators. This arbitration step may continue for three arbitration rounds to reach a final decision. If the arbitration results are conflicting, a third arbitrator is proposed, after which the final decision is made. The editors conduct this follow-up review and end with the appropriate recommendation to accept or reject.

7. Informing the Author of the final decision: 

The editor-in-chief approves the final decision (accept or reject), confirms it, and is notified to the designated author for correspondence via emails and the journal's website. If the decision is rejected, the author is notified of the decision feedback from the editor or arbitrators without mentioning names.

 

8. In the case of acceptance:

The research advances to the production phase, which includes linguistic editing, production preparation, and typesetting to prepare it for publication in the specified issue.