Guide for Reviewers

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

Before starting the review process, the reviewer must verify whether the research sent to him falls within his scientific specialty or not. If the research is within his scientific specialty, does the reviewer have sufficient time to complete the review process, as the review process must not exceed ten days.

After the reviewer agrees to conduct the review process and complete it within the specified period. Please conduct the evaluation process according to the following criteria:

 

1 - A statement of whether the research summary clearly describes the content and idea of the research.

2 - Does the introduction to the research accurately describe what the author wants to achieve and clarify, and does the author explain in it what the problem is that he studied?

3 - The author discusses the results he reached during his research in a scientific and convincing manner.

4 - The review process must be conducted confidentially and the author must not be informed of any aspect of it.

5 - If the reviewer wants to discuss the research with another reviewer , he must inform the editor-in-chief of this.

6 - There should be no direct correspondence and discussions between the reviewer and the author regarding his research sent for publication, and the reviewer ’s comments must be sent to the author through the editorial director of the journal.

7 - If the reviewer believes that the research is derived from previous studies, the reviewer must explain those studies to the editor-in-chief of the journal.

8 - The reviewer ’s scientific observations and recommendations will depend mainly on whether or not the research is accepted for publication. The reviewer is also requested to point out precisely the paragraphs that need a simple amendment that may be made by the editorial board, and those that need a fundamental amendment that must be done by the author himself.

9 - Is the research original and important that it should be published in the journal?

10 - Whether the research is consistent with the general policy of the journal and its publishing regulations.

11 - Has the research idea been addressed in previous studies? If yes, please indicate those studies?

12 - To what extent does the title of the research express the research itself and its content?