Guide for Reviewers

The main task of the scientific reviewer for research papers submitted for publication is to read the research that falls within his/her scientific field carefully and evaluate it according to a scientific academic perspective that is not subject to any personal opinions, and then to establish his/her constructive and honest notes regarding the research sent to him/her.

Before starting the evaluation process, the reviewer is requested to make sure of his/her full readiness to evaluate the research sent to him/her, and whether it falls within his/her scientific field or not, and whether the reviewer has enough time to complete the evaluation process, otherwise the reviewer may apologize and suggest another reviewer.

After the reviewer agrees to conduct the evaluation process and ensure its completion within the specified period, it is requested to conduct the evaluation process according to the following limitations:

  1. The evaluation process must not exceed two weeks, so that it does not negatively affect the author.
  2. Do not disclose research information for any reason during and after completing the evaluation process, except after obtaining the written permission of the author and the editor-in-chief of the journal, or when the research is published.
  3. Do not use research information for any personal benefits, or for the purpose of harming the author or the institutions sponsoring him/her.
  4. Disclose any potential conflict of interest.
  5. The reviewer should not be affected by the nationality, religion, or gender of the author, or any other personal considerations.
  6. Is the research original and important enough to be published in the journal?
  7. State whether the research is in line with the journal's general policy and publication regulations.
  8. Is the research idea covered in previous studies? If so, please refer to those studies.
  9. State the extent to which the research title reflects the research itself and its content.
  10. State whether the research abstract clearly describes the content and idea of the research.
  11. Does the introduction of the research describe what the author wants to reach and clarify in a precise way? Did the author clarify the problem he/she studied?
  12. The author's discussion of the results he/she reached during his/her research in a scientific and convincing manner.
  13. The evaluation process must be conducted in secret and the author must not be informed of any aspect of it.
  14. If the reviewer wants to discuss the research with another reviewer, he/she must notify the editor-in-chief of this.
  15. There should be no direct communication and discussions between the reviewer and the author regarding his/her research submitted for publication, and the reviewer's notes should be sent to the author through the editor-in-chief of the journal.
  16. If the reviewer believes that the research is derived from previous studies, the reviewer must indicate those studies to the editor-in-chief of the journal.
  17. The reviewer's scientific notes and recommendations will be relied on and in a major way in the decision to accept the research for publication or not, and the reviewer is requested to point out and in a precise manner to the paragraphs that need a simple amendment that the editorial board of the journal can do, and to those that need a fundamental amendment that the author himself must do.
  18. final full below form 
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zWOlLeu-2JUD2xaQevJF2vPO53B0qh0v/view?usp=drive_link