Reviewer responsibilities

The Journal  of Jurisprudence Faculty is keen to ensure the highest levels of efficiency and fairness in the evaluation process, in addition to ensuring the unification of the evaluation mechanism, agreeing on its stages, and emphasizing the importance of meeting the criteria for fair and accurate evaluation. Therefore, we see that the basic task of the scientific evaluator of research lies in the following points:

* To read the research that falls within his scientific specialty very carefully, and evaluate it according to an academic scientific perspective that is not subject to his personal opinions.

* To write his honest notes about the research within the research file itself and in a color different from the researcher’s text (such as putting his note in parentheses and in a specific color, so that the researcher will pay attention to it), and then save the file in its modified form, so that it can be returned to the researcher in order to modify it.

* To fill out the electronic form related to the results of his arbitration.

* The research must be returned to the journal within a period not exceeding fifteen days.

* The evaluation process must be conducted in complete confidentiality throughout the evaluation process, and the evaluator must not disclose information about the research being evaluated, or discuss its content with any other person outside the evaluation process. If he wants to seek the assistance of another expert or colleague, he must inform the magazine about that. Before submitting this work.

*The evaluation is carried out according to the following criteria:

The consistency of the title with the content. Integrity of the scientific method used with the content. The extent to which sources and references are documented and up-to-date.
Originality and added scientific value in the field of knowledge. The research is consistent with the general policy of the journal and its publishing regulations. Not to draw inspiration from previous studies, and if the evidence is proven, the reviewer is obligated to explain those studies to the editor-in-chief of the journal.
State whether the research summary clearly describes the content and idea of ​​the research in both Arabic and English.
Explaining the extent to which the results reached by the researcher are based on the theoretical frameworks on which he relied.
The evaluation process takes place confidentially, and the author does not have the right to see any aspect of it, and notes are delivered in writing to the managing editor.
The evaluator’s scientific observations and recommendations will mainly depend on the decision to accept the research for publication or not.