Reviewers Guidelines

'ARABIYYA: JURNAL STUDI BAHASA ARAB conducts a peer-review process to maintain the quality and validity of published articles. All submitted articles will be reviewed. 'ARABIYYA uses a fast and fair Single Blind-Review process and ensures the published articles are of high quality. To accomplish this, 'ARABIYYA requires reviewers to provide insightful and useful comments on the submitted manuscripts within a turnaround time of approximately 4-5 weeks. Making 'ARABIYYA a quality scientific journal relies heavily on the ability of reviewers to be objective, fair, and insightful in evaluating manuscripts. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct.

Before accepting or rejecting an invitation to review, reviewers should consider the following questions:

  1. Is the article within your area of expertise? Accept only if you feel you can provide a good review.
  2. Do you have the time? Reviewing can be a substantial job - make sure you can meet the deadline before committing.
  3. If you accept, you must treat the material you receive as confidential. This means you cannot share it with anyone without prior permission from the editor. As peer reviews are confidential, you must not share any information about the review with anyone without the editor and author's permission.

Article Review Guidelines

The reviewer's feedback will assist the editor in deciding whether to publish the article or not. Providing constructive overall opinions and general observations on the article is essential, as well as explaining the rating given so that the editor and author can fully understand the reasons behind the comments provided. The detailed items that will be reviewed include:

  1. Title: Specification and clarity
  2. Abstract: Describes the essence of the article
  3. Keywords: Describes the important concepts of the article
  4. Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, topic relevance, compatibility, and the significance of the research object
  5. Research Method: Should emphasize the procedures and data analysis for empirical studies
  6. Results: Accuracy analysis
  7. Findings: Latest findings, relevance to researchers, and the scientific contribution of discoveries/ideas for scientific development
  8. Conclusion: Logical, valid, concise, and clear
  9. Suggestions: For practical actions, new theory development, and further/advanced research
  10. Bibliography: The latest degree and references to main book sources. Rule: minimum 60% of related scientific journals or research, three years, and references from the last ten years of books. The minimum number of reference citations in the bibliography is 15.


In the complete manuscript review process, reviewers should also consider the following:

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, i.e., has a logical development and clear organization?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and easy to understand?
  3. Are any sections that need to be reduced, eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note any significant mechanical issues: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are only a few places that are not expressed well or correctly, make a note to tell the author of specific places).
  5. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select one or two examples if necessary - do not try to edit everything.
  6. Abbreviations: Used wisely and arranged so that readers will not have difficulty remembering what is represented by the abbreviation.
  7. Following the style, format, and rules of other journals.
  8. Citations provided when giving evidence-based information from external sources.

Decision Categories:

  1. Accept Submission: No Revision Required
  2. Revision Required (Minor Revision): Revision can be done by the Editor-In-Chief or their assistants
  3. Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): Revision can only be done by the author
  4. Decline Submission: Not scientific or poor quality of the manuscript