Sultan Qaboos Air Academy Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system that ensures the quality of published research, safeguards academic integrity, and strengthens the confidence of researchers and readers. Peer review is a core component of the journal’s publishing system: no manuscript is published until it has passed initial editorial screening and then specialist peer review, under clear procedures that observe confidentiality, objectivity, conflict-of-interest rules, and publication ethics.

The journal adopts a double-blind review system: authors do not know the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identities. This system promotes impartiality, reduces the potential for bias, and ensures that a manuscript is evaluated on its scholarly value, methodology, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, rather than on the author’s identity, institution, or academic standing.

Aims of Peer Review

• Ensure the originality and scholarly value of submitted research.
• Verify the soundness of methodology and the accuracy of analysis.
• Assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and interdisciplinary scope.
• Improve research quality through constructive scholarly feedback.
• Protect the journal from weak, duplicate, or unethical publication.
• Support authors in developing their work in line with refereed-publishing standards.
• Strengthen the scholarly community’s trust in the journal’s output.

Type of Review Adopted

The journal applies double-blind review to all research that passes initial screening. Under this system: author names are not disclosed to reviewers; reviewer names are not disclosed to authors; all identifying data are removed from the manuscript file; reviewers commit to the confidentiality of studies and review reports; and the editorial board takes the final decision based on the reviewers’ reports and the specialist editor’s opinion. Where an additional scholarly opinion is warranted, the journal may refer the manuscript to a third reviewer or specialist expert, especially if reviewer reports conflict or the research question is of a finely interdisciplinary nature.

Initial Editorial Screening

Before being sent for peer review, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial board (or its delegate) to confirm it meets the journal’s minimum requirements. Screening covers: completeness of submission files; fit within the journal’s scope; compliance with the author instructions; quality of language and general academic structure; presence of the abstract, keywords, and references; removal of author data from the anonymized file; an initial similarity and originality check; and the manuscript’s suitability for review.

The editorial board may reject a manuscript at this stage, without sending it to reviewers, if it is outside scope, clearly weak scientifically or methodologically, fails to meet basic submission requirements, or shows strong indicators of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research-ethics violations.

Selection and Number of Reviewers

The editorial board selects reviewers based on their scholarly expertise, precise specialization, and relevance to the manuscript’s topic, taking into account: appropriate specialization; relevant research or professional experience; absence of conflict of interest with the authors or topic; the ability to provide an objective, constructive report; commitment to review confidentiality; and the ability to complete the review within the set period. Where possible, the journal selects reviewers from outside the author’s institution to reinforce independence and objectivity, and may use reviewers from within or outside Oman according to the topic.

Each qualified manuscript is sent to at least two specialist reviewers. If reports diverge substantially, a report is insufficient, or an additional opinion is needed, the board may send the manuscript to a third reviewer. The final decision is not made on a purely numerical basis; the board weighs the quality of the reports, the strength of the scholarly observations, the nature of the required revisions, and the manuscript’s response to the journal’s standards.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript against clear scholarly criteria, including: originality and novelty; clarity of the research problem or gap; relevance to the journal’s scope and aims; suitability of the title; quality and accuracy of the abstract; soundness of the theoretical or conceptual framework; adequacy and currency of the literature review; clarity and suitability of methodology; quality of data collection or argument construction; accuracy and depth of analysis; clarity and consistency of results with the aims; strength of the discussion and its link to the literature; the scholarly or applied contribution; soundness of language and academic style; adherence to research and publication ethics; quality of tables, figures, and references; and suitability for publication with or without revision. The journal gives particular attention to interdisciplinary research connecting more than one field.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Conflicts of Interest

• Evaluate the manuscript objectively and fairly, with clear, constructive feedback.
• Respect the manuscript’s confidentiality and never share it with any third party.
• Not use any information or ideas in the manuscript for personal or research purposes before publication.
• Accept a review only when sufficiently expert in the topic, and complete it on time or notify the editors.
• Avoid personal or unprofessional remarks, and focus on the quality of the research, not the author’s identity, background, or institution.
• Alert the editors to any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical or methodological flaw.
• Disclose any conflict of interest — such as a recent research relationship with the author, shared institution, scholarly or personal dispute, financial or professional interest, prior involvement in the work, or ability to identify the author — and decline the review or inform the editors.

Confidentiality and Use of AI in Review

The journal treats all submitted studies as confidential documents. Neither editors, reviewers, nor any party involved in publication may disclose a manuscript’s content, data, or review results to any unauthorized party. Reviewers may not upload studies or parts of them to external AI tools or unapproved platforms to summarize, evaluate, or write the review report where this would breach the confidentiality of the manuscript, the authors’ rights, or the research data. The reviewer remains fully responsible for their report, observations, and recommendation. Any permitted digital aid used merely to improve the language of the report — without exposing the manuscript — must not affect the independence or accuracy of the scholarly judgment, which must remain the reviewer’s own.

Review Decisions and Editorial Authority

After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the editorial board takes one of the following decisions:

• Accept for publication without substantial revision.
• Accept after minor revisions.
• Reconsider after major revisions.
• Reject, with the possibility of resubmission as a new manuscript.
• Reject definitively.

A request for revision does not mean automatic acceptance; the final decision depends on how well the authors respond to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and on the quality of the revised version. The editorial board retains final responsibility for the publication decision, based on the reviewers’ reports, the specialist editor’s opinion, the manuscript’s fit with the scope, its adherence to ethics, and its scholarly and editorial quality. The board may overrule a reviewer’s recommendation if the report is insufficient, non-objective, or lacks clear scholarly justification, and may seek an additional reviewer or internal editorial review.

Revisions, Re-review, and Timeline

When revisions are requested, authors must provide a revised manuscript; a detailed response file explaining how each comment was addressed; highlighted changes if requested; and a clear scholarly justification where a comment is not adopted. Responses should be precise, professional, and direct. The journal may reject a manuscript if the response is inadequate or substantive comments are not properly addressed. If the required revisions are major, the revised version may be returned to the original or new reviewers; for minor revisions, the specialist editor may review the revised version and decide without external re-review.

The journal aims to complete review within a reasonable period that balances review quality with authors’ interests; the duration varies with the topic, reviewer availability, manuscript size, and degree of specialization. The journal reduces unjustified delay through qualified reviewers, follow-up, and reminders — while affirming that the quality of scholarly review takes precedence over speed. Where reviewer reports diverge substantially, the board may refer the manuscript to a third reviewer, request clarification, consult a specialist editor, decide on the strength of the observations rather than the count of recommendations, or request major revisions before the final decision.

Editorial Independence, Appeals, and General Principles

The journal guarantees the independence of the editorial decision from any non-scholarly considerations: institutional affiliation, personal relationships, academic standing, or geographic or professional factors may not influence acceptance or rejection. Decisions rest on the quality, originality, methodology, scope-relevance, and ethical compliance of the research and the assessment of reviewers and specialist editors.

Authors may request a review of the editorial decision if they believe it rested on a substantial misunderstanding or a clear procedural error. An appeal must be written, professional, and grounded in specific scholarly justification rather than general objection to the outcome. The board considers appeals through a fair process and may seek an additional opinion; it does not guarantee a change of decision but commits to reviewing the request seriously and objectively. The journal values reviewers’ efforts, seeks to build a qualified reviewer base, and may issue certificates of appreciation or publish an annual list of reviewers who agree to be named — without linking any name to a specific manuscript, to preserve review confidentiality.