PEER REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL POLICY

Revue Internationale de Droit et des Affaires

Published by Hassan First University – Settat, Kingdom of Morocco

through the Laboratory for Research in Business Law,

Faculty of Legal and Political Sciences

1. TYPE OF PEER REVIEW

Revue Internationale de Droit et des Affaires applies a double-blind peer-review process to scholarly research articles.

Reviewers do not receive author identities through the anonymised review manuscript, and authors are not informed of reviewer identities.

2. QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS

The Journal’s editorial and quality-control process consists of:

Submission

→ Administrative Check

→ Preliminary Editorial Screening

→ Plagiarism and Originality Screening

→ Reviewer Selection

→ Double-Blind Peer Review

→ Editorial Assessment

→ Author Revision where required

→ Further Assessment where necessary

→ Final Editorial Decision

→ Production Quality Control

→ Publication

3. PRELIMINARY EDITORIAL SCREENING

Submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary assessment concerning:

• compatibility with the Journal’s aims and scope;

• scholarly character;

• originality;

• relevance;

• structure and presentation;

• compliance with submission requirements;

• potential ethical or research-integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that clearly fail to meet minimum scholarly, ethical, or editorial requirements may be declined before external peer review.

4. PLAGIARISM AND ORIGINALITY SCREENING

The Journal uses Turnitin and iThenticate to assist in originality assessment and the detection of potentially problematic textual overlap.

Similarity reports are evaluated according to the source, nature, extent, and context of the identified similarities.

A numerical similarity percentage alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.

5. SELECTION OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers are selected according to:

• relevant scholarly expertise;

• academic and research experience;

• knowledge of the relevant discipline or subject;

• ability to provide an independent scholarly assessment;

• absence of known conflicts of interest;

• availability to undertake the review.

The Journal seeks to select reviewers capable of providing independent, objective, and academically reasoned assessments.

6. REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers may evaluate:

• originality;

• scholarly significance;

• relevance;

• clarity of the research problem;

• methodology or analytical approach;

• quality and depth of legal or scientific analysis;

• coherence;

• engagement with relevant literature and sources;

• accuracy and adequacy of references;

• conclusions;

• ethical integrity;

• overall scholarly contribution.

7. REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

Reviewer recommendations may include:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision and Reassessment

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not mechanically determine the final editorial decision.

8. DIVERGENT REVIEWS

Where reviewer assessments materially disagree, the responsible editor evaluates the manuscript and the review reports.

Where necessary, an additional independent expert assessment may be requested before a final editorial decision is made.

9. AUTHOR REVISION

Where revisions are requested, authors may be required to submit:

• a revised manuscript; and

• a point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.

Substantially revised manuscripts may undergo further assessment or additional peer review.

10. FINAL EDITORIAL DECISION

The final editorial decision is based on:

• scholarly merit;

• reviewer assessments;

• author responses;

• originality and integrity assessments;

• compliance with Journal policies.

The final decision rests with the competent editorial authority of the Journal.

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

11. CONFIDENTIALITY

Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or improperly use unpublished manuscript information.

12. OBJECTIVITY

Reviews must be independent, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and academically reasoned.

Personal, discriminatory, abusive, or irrelevant criticism is unacceptable.

13. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers must disclose any financial, academic, institutional, professional, personal, collaborative, or competitive relationship that could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise their independence.

A reviewer with a significant conflict of interest should decline the review.

14. SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT

If a reviewer identifies possible:

• plagiarism;

• fabrication;

• falsification;

• duplicate publication;

• fabricated references;

• citation manipulation;

• other serious research-integrity concerns,

the matter should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding suspected misconduct.

15. CITATION MANIPULATION

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications or other works where those citations are not academically relevant.

16. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial unpublished manuscript content into public or third-party generative AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, copyright, privacy, or data protection.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the independence and integrity of their assessments.

17. EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Peer review is managed within the Journal’s academic and editorial structure in Morocco.

The Journal charges authors no submission, peer-review, processing, or publication fees.

Financial considerations have no role in reviewer selection, reviewer recommendations, or editorial decisions.

📌 1️⃣ سياسة التحكيم العلمي (Peer Review Policy)

سياسة التحكيم العلمي

تعتمد مجلة Droit et Entreprise – مجلة القانون والأعمال نظام التحكيم العلمي المزدوج المجهول (Double-Blind Peer Review)، حيث لا يُكشف اسم المؤلف للمحكِّم، ولا اسم المحكِّم للمؤلف، ضمانًا للنزاهة والموضوعية.

تمرّ جميع المقالات المقدمة للمجلة بالمراحل التالية:

1. الفحص الأولي
   تقوم هيئة التحرير بفحص المقال للتأكد من:

   • توافقه مع أهداف ونطاق المجلة

   • احترام قواعد المنهجية العلمية

   • الالتزام بأخلاقيات النشر

2. التحكيم العلمي

   • يُحال المقال إلى محكِّمين اثنين متخصصين على الأقل.

   • يُقيَّم المقال من حيث الأصالة، القيمة العلمية، المنهجية، سلامة النتائج، وحداثة المراجع.

3. قرار النشر

   • قبول المقال دون تعديلات

   • قبول المقال بعد تعديلات

   • رفض المقال مع تعليل علمي

4. المراجعة النهائية
   تلتزم هيئة التحرير بمتابعة تنفيذ التعديلات المطلوبة قبل النشر النهائي.

⏱️ متوسط مدة التحكيم: من 2إلى 6 أسابيع.