Journal of Academic Research for Humanities (JARH) is a double-blind, peer-reviewed, Open Free Access, online Multidisciplinary Research Journal
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Instructions & Process for Reviewing

Eligibility of a Reviewer:

  1.  JARH appoints only those scholars who hold a minimum Ph.D. degree in the specific areas of research.
  2. JARH prefers only Associate / Full Professors as reviewers due to their enhanced experience.

 

Selection Process:

  1. JARH announces an online "Call for Reviewers" quarterly.
  2. The candidates apply through an online Google Form and attach their required PhD degree and PhD notification.
  3. The JARH team, including the editor, the concerned section editor and one member from the editorial team, reviews the submitted request and checks the attached documents and decides on their nomination as reviewers.
  4. JARH's concerned section editor emails and messages on WhatsApp to the newly appointed reviewers for their consent to start reviewing the papers, and then assigns papers.  
  5. If a reviewer does not maintain 4/5 star level of review for three consecutive reviews, they will be informed to improve their review standard otherwise, they will be removed from the list of reviewers. 

 

Trainings & Workshops for the Reviewers:

  1. JARH conducts online “Reviewers' Training" every two months to ensure the quality of the reviews.
  2. JARH conducts these trainings free of cost.
  3. JARH arranges an online workshop biannually for practical solutions and hands-on practices of the review process.
  4. During these workshops, JARH demonstrates and practices techniques for efficiently reviewing manuscripts, simplifying the review process, and providing effective suggestions.  

 

Benefits:

  1. JARH issues “Certificates of Acknowledgement”, on request, to the reviewers who maintain a 5-star reviewer Rank for one year minimum.
  2. JARH pays a handsome honorarium to the reviewers as per the quality maintained by the reviewer at the 5-star review Ranks.
  3. JARH also provides the facility of displaying good comments by the Authors and the editorial team for the reviewers on the website, with ONLY the Identification Code of the reviewers.
  4. JARH offers a Recreational Trip to recreational areas of Pakistan and Canada yearly for those reviewers who maintain a 5-star rating throughout the year.
  5. JARH applied the quality review standard of a 5-star ranking among reviewers (please ensure your rank is at 4/5 stars, otherwise JARH will not send you further assignments for review)

 

5-Star Quality Review Policy:

  • Single Star = Filling of Review Form with the comments for the author and editor only after going through the manuscript.
  • Double Stars = Review From + "Comments related to the JARH basic requirements of the paper on the MS Word File of the paper”
  • Three Stars = Review From + "Comments on JARH basic paper requirements + Comments related to the Contents of the paper in the MS Word file”
  • Four Stars = Review From + "Comments on JARH basic paper requirements + Comments related to Contents throughout the whole paper + highlighting through the Colour scheme given by the JARH.  
  • Five Stars = Review From + "Comments on JARH basic paper requirements + Comments related to the Contents + highlighting through the Colour scheme + suggestions to improve the paper quality in each/maximum comments for the author and editor.

NOTE: "International Journal of Academic Research for Humanities" (JARH) accepts and acknowledges only the fourth or fifth level of reviews. JARH makes payments weekly to the reviewers

 

Steps to Review the Article:

The review process for articles submitted to the "International Journal of Academic Research for Humanities" (JARH) is online on the OJS website of the journal and involves the following steps: 

  1. Accept the article to review by uploading the pictures of your SIGNATURE and STAMP in soft copy on the first page in the concerned box
  2. Please download the Article file FIRST...  
  3. Read the Reviewer's instructions on the Second page.
  4. The reviewer can suggest a co-reviewer nationally/internationally, and the section editor will prefer the suggested co-reviewer. 
  5. Review and comment in the MS Word file of the manuscript through the 'REVIEW' tab and insert suggestions for enhancing the quality of the paper by observing the 5-star policy of review.  
  6. Fill out the online OJS 'Review Form' 
  7. Upload the MS Word file of the manuscript loaded with the comments and suggestions.
  8. Please write easy-to-understand and specific comments for the author to enhance the quality of the paper.
  9. Please write comprehensive comments for the editor about the paper
  10. Select the appropriate option on the OJS Website about the paper regarding 'Accepted', Revision Required', etc.
  11. Submit the review through the OJS website of the journal.
  12. In a technical issue, the reviewer can submit the review as an attachment to the official email of the section editor. 

 

Check List for the Review

 

Sr. #

 

Basic Requirements

Yes / No

1.      

The abstract is between 200 to 249 words.

 

2.      

The full paper word limit is between 4000 to 6000

 

3.      

Keywords limit, maximum 5 and single words, separated with (;)

 

4.      

Necessary additional headings as per the Vision and Mission of the JARH
(1) Innovation/Cutting-Edge Part of the study,
(2) Collaboration/Geographical Location or Institution name of Pakistan or Canada for the study.

 

5.      

Similarity Index and AI check (maximum 19% and 15% respectively)

 

6.      

The grammar check is necessary, the author can use www.grammarly.com

 

7.      

APA format for referencing (last name of the first author, single letters of remaining each name, then last name of the second author, if, single letters of remaining each name, then last name of the third author, if, single letters of remaining each name, then et al. if more, (year of publication), the title of paper or book, the title of the journal in italic, vol. number (issue number in italic), page number or range (please follow APA referencing format for other sources)

 

8.      

APA in-text citation within the text of the paper (last name of the first author, year of publication, page number if)

 

9.      

Citation from the previous edition of JARH (5-8)

 

10.                         

Citation from the previous editions of Scopus Journals (10)

 

 

Skimming Technique

Following the invitation to review, when you have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data, and conclusions of the manuscript. The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Sr. No.

Skimming Points

Yes/No

1.      

The Abstract has four parts

 

2.      

 

The introductory sentence of a holistic view

 

3.      

 

Problem description

 

4.      

 

Methodology of the research

 

5.      

 

Conclusion of the research and scope of the research

 

6.      

Keywords accurately reflect the abstract content

 

7.      

Research Objectives are according to the abstract

 

8.      

Research questions are relevant and in order

 

9.      

Research Methods are used appropriately

 

10.                         

Literature Review and its headings are accordingly

 

11.                         

Suggested JARH and Scopus references are relevant

 

12.                         

The title is appropriate for the article

 

 

Scanning Technique

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research.

Sr. No.

Skimming Points

Yes/No

1.      

Sweeping Statements are highlighted in RED, BOLD and UNDERLINE

 

2.      

Vague or Ambiguous Terms are highlighted in RED and UNDERLINE

 

3.      

Old references, which can be an alternative citation to later research, are highlighted in RED

 

4.      

Out-of-topic or irrelevant contents are highlighted in ORANGE

 

5.      

Contents need to be explained, or extensions are highlighted in GREEN

 

6.      

Headings which need to be incorporated are highlighted in GREEN and BOLD

 

7.      

Order of Headings/Research Design is highlighted in GREEN, BOLD, ITALIC

 

8.      

Statistical Data is appropriate

 

9.      

Statistical Data presentation, if needed in any other format or style

 

10.                         

Duplicated Data or Contents are highlighted in Light GREEN

 

11.                         

In-text citations and References are interlinked and checked (Explanation)

 

12.                         

Patent Citations = How many citations are included by the Author

 

13.                         

The conclusion is evident from the research questions and the reviewed data

 

14.                         

Recommendations are logical and not in “Should Be”

 

15.                         

The innovation description is in a reasonable and logical format

 

16.                         

The Reference List is in ALPHABETICAL order.

 

17.                         

Annexures are properly IN ORDER at the end of the paper

 

18.                         

Suggestions on each comment would give a reviewer the Star-5 level

 

 

Review Report

  • The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of 'comments' because the author(s) will only have access to the comments reviewers have made.
  • For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a prescribed form(s).
  • It is helpful for both the Editor and author(s) if the reviewer writes a summary in the first section of the review report. This summary should comprise the reviewer's final decision and inferences drawn from a full review.
  • Any personal comments on the author(s) should be avoided, and final remarks should be written courteously and positively.
  • Indicating any deficiencies is important. For the understanding of the Editor and author(s), the reviewers should highlight these deficiencies in some detail with specificity. This should help justify the comments made by the reviewer.
  • When a reviewer decides on the research paper, it should be indicated as 'Accept Submission', 'Revisions Required', 'Resubmit for Review', 'Resubmit Elsewhere', 'Decline Submission', or 'See Comments'.
  • The final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) will solely rest with the Editor. The editor will surely consider the reviewer's comments and has the right to send the paper for another opinion or send it back to the author(s) for revision before making the final decision.