Reviewer Guidelines

The main task of the scientific evaluator for research sent for pub-lication is for the evaluator to read the research that falls within his scientific specialization very carefully and evaluate it according to scientific and academic insights and perspective not subject to any personal opinions, and then confirm his constructive and honest observations about the research sent to him.

Before starting the evaluation process, the evaluator is requested to ensure his full readiness to evaluate the research sent to him and whether it falls within his scientific specialization or not, and whether the evaluator has sufficient time to complete the evalua-tion process, otherwise the evaluator can apologize and suggest another evaluator.

After the evaluator agrees to conduct the evaluation process and ensure that it is completed within the specified period, the evalua-tion process must be conducted according to the following pa-rameters:

• The evaluation process should not exceed ten days in order not to negatively affect the author.
• Not to disclose the research Information and for any reason during and after the evaluation process is completed, except after obtaining the written permission of the author and the editor-in-chief of the journal or upon publication of the research.
• Not to use the research information for any personal benefit or for the purpose of causing harm to the author or his sponsoring institutions.
• The resident should not be influenced by the nationality, reli-gion, gender of the author, or any other personal considerations.
• Is the research original and important to the extent that it should be published in the journal. whether the research is consistent with the general policy of the journal and the publishing controls therein?
• Is the research idea covered in previous studies? If yes, please refer to those studies.
• The expression of the search title for the search itself and its content.
• A statement as to whether the research summary clearly de-scribes the research content and its idea.
• Does the Introduction describe in the research what the author wants to reach and explain precisely, and does the author clarify in it what the problem he has studied?
• The author's discussion of the results he reached during his research a scientific and convincing manner.
• The evaluation process should be conducted confidentially, and the author should not be informed of any aspect of it.
• If the evaluator wants to discuss the research with another evaluator, he must inform the editor-in-chief of this.
• There should be no direct correspondence or discussions be-tween the reviewer and the author regarding the research submit-ted for publication; the reviewer's comments should be sent to the author through the editorial manager.
• If the reviewer believes that the research is derived from previous studies, the reviewer must state those studies to the editor-in-chief.
• The reviewer’s scientific observations and recommendations will be the main basis for deciding whether or not to accept the research for publication. The reviewer should also point out precisely which paragraphs need minor modifications that can be made by the editorial board and which need substantial modifications that must be made by the author himself.