Introduction
   Reviewers play a fundamental role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of publications in the Hajjah University Journal of Applied Sciences (HUJAS).
  The journal relies on expert reviewers to provide objective, constructive, and independent evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Policy
  HUJAS follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality research.
  Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Every reviewer is expected to adhere to the journal's ethical standards, confidentiality requirements, and review procedures.

Reviewer Responsibilities
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:
  • Review only manuscripts within their area of expertise.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Conduct an objective, fair, and constructive evaluation.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately.
  • Avoid using any unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional benefit.
  • Provide clear, detailed, and evidence-based comments to assist both the editors and the authors.

Review Timeline
Reviewers are requested to observe the following deadlines:
  • Invitation Response: within one week of receiving the invitation. If no response is received within this period, the invitation will be considered declined, and another reviewer may be assigned.
  • Review Submission: within 4 weeks after accepting the invitation.
  • Extension Request: If additional time is required, reviewers may request an extension of up to 8 days before the review deadline. If no extension is requested and the review is not completed on time, the editor may assign the manuscript to another reviewer.

Evaluation Criteria
  Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:
  • Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Is the language (grammar, spelling, punctuation, and English usage) of sufficient quality?
  • Does the abstract clearly summarize the objectives, methods, and findings of the study?
  • Is the literature review relevant, comprehensive, and up to date?
  • Is the analysis accurate, rigorous, and complete?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the presented results?
  • Are the references complete and correctly formatted (authors, year, volume, issue, and page numbers)?
  • Are the tables and figures appropriately prepared, labeled, and placed?
  • Is the manuscript well organized and clearly presented?
  • Does the manuscript present original, significant, and publishable research?
  • Are the declarations for ethics and data availability statements adequate?
  • Are the manuscript's scientific fundamentals solid, and does the chosen experimental design effectively test the core hypothesis?

For each criterion, reviewers should select one of the following options:
  • Yes
  • No
  • Needs Revision
A manuscript does not need to receive a Yes for every criterion to be considered for publication. However, whenever No or Needs Revision is selected, reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and specific recommendations in the Comments to the Author section.

Overall Recommendation
After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript as follows:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to be entirely independent and hold no conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript's research, authors, or financial sponsors. Should a reviewer anticipate or identify a potential conflict, they must immediately report it to the editorial board. The journal resolves all such matters by strictly adhering to the guidelines established in the COPE Conflict of Interest Framework (https://publicationethics.org/case/conflict-interest).