دليل المقيمين

Guidelines for Reviewers

The primary responsibility of the reviewer is to examine the submitted manuscript within their area of expertise with accuracy, objectivity, and professionalism. The manuscript should be evaluated according to recognized academic standards, free from personal bias or subjective judgments, while providing constructive scientific comments that contribute to improving the quality and scholarly value of the research.

  1. Verification of Readiness to Conduct the Review

Before commencing the review process, reviewers should ensure that:

  • The subject matter of the manuscript falls within their field of specialization and scientific expertise.
  • They have sufficient time to complete the review within the specified deadline.
  • No conflict of interest exists that could affect the impartiality and integrity of the evaluation.
  1. Ethical Principles of Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles:

  • Complete the review process within a period not exceeding ten days from the date of receiving the manuscript, in order to safeguard authors’ rights and facilitate the timely publication process.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and refrain from disclosing any information related to it before, during, or after the review process, unless written permission is granted by the author and the Editor-in-Chief, or the manuscript has been formally published.
  • Refrain from using any information contained in the manuscript for personal benefit or in any manner that may harm the author or the institution with which the author is affiliated.
  • Conduct the review process under complete confidentiality, ensuring that authors are not provided with any information concerning the review process or the identity of reviewers.
  • Avoid any direct communication with the author concerning the manuscript under review. All comments, recommendations, and correspondence should be communicated exclusively through the Journal's Editorial Office or Editorial Board.
  • In cases where consultation with another reviewer is deemed necessary, prior approval must be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief.
  1. Criteria for Evaluating Scientific Research

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are requested to assess the following aspects:

  1. Originality and Scientific Significance
  • The originality and novelty of the research topic.
  • The significance of the findings or scholarly contributions presented.
  • The extent to which the manuscript aligns with the Journal’s aims, scope, policies, and publication requirements.
  1. Literature Review and Previous Studies
  • Whether the research topic or idea has been previously addressed in the literature.
  • Identification of relevant studies where substantial overlap or similarity exists.
  • The extent to which the manuscript contributes new knowledge beyond existing scholarly work.
  1. Research Title
  • The accuracy and appropriateness of the title in reflecting the content, objectives, and central theme of the research.
  1. Abstract
  • The clarity and comprehensiveness of the abstract.
  • Its effectiveness in providing a concise and accurate overview of the research topic, objectives, methodology, and principal findings.
  1. Introduction and Research Problem
  • The clarity of the overall framework and context of the study.
  • The precision with which the research problem, objectives, research questions, and/or hypotheses are defined.
  • The ability of the introduction to clearly articulate the purpose and significance of the study.
  1. Methodology and Results
  • The suitability of the research methodology for achieving the study objectives.
  • The soundness and rigor of the scientific procedures employed.
  • The clarity, accuracy, and reliability of the reported results.
  1. Discussion and Conclusions
  • The author's ability to interpret and discuss the findings in a logical and scientifically sound manner.
  • The degree to which the conclusions are supported by and derived from the findings.
  • The strength and adequacy of the arguments and evidence used to support the conclusions.
  1. Detection of Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct

If the reviewer identifies evidence of unacknowledged borrowing, plagiarism, or substantial similarity with previously published work, the reviewer should:

  • Inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
  • Specify the sources or studies from which the similarity or suspected plagiarism appears to originate.
  • Provide supporting evidence and relevant documentation to substantiate such concerns.
  1. Final Recommendations

As publication decisions rely heavily on reviewers’ reports, reviewers are requested to ensure that their comments and recommendations are precise, clear, objective, and actionable. Reviewers should clearly distinguish between:

  • Minor Revisions: Amendments that can be readily addressed or monitored by the Editorial Board.
  • Major Revisions: Substantive changes requiring direct intervention by the author and reconsideration of significant portions of the manuscript.