For Reviewer (Guidelines)

Duties and Responsibilities

Duties of Reviewers:

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.
  • Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
  • Alertness to Ethical Issues. A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  • Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Peer Reviewer Responsibility

Peer reviewers are responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in their area of expertise, then providing constructive advice and honest feedback to the authors of submitted articles. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of articles, how to improve the strength and quality of papers, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please pay attention to the following:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed according to your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not fit your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend alternative reviews.
  • Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  • Title: does it describe the article clearly?
  • Abstract: does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of the things conveyed by the author and clearly state the issues under consideration? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and explain the findings of the study or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain experiments, hypotheses, and methods.

Article Content

The article you received for review, has previously been examined by the editorial team using Turnitin as a plagiarism checker and no more than 30% if previous research has been done by other authors, is it still eligible for publication?

  • Is the article new, deep enough, and interesting to publish?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article comply with journal standards?
  • Scope – Does the article fit the purpose and scope of the journal?

Result:

This is where the author should explain the findings in his research. It should be arranged clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether the analysis has been carried out accordingly or not; The use of statistical tools is appropriate if this research is quantitative type.

 

Discussions and conclusions:

  • Are the claims in this section supported by fair and reasonable results?
  • Do the authors compare the results of the study with previous studies?
  • Do the results of the research written in the article contradict the previous theory?
  • What are the conclusions explaining how better scientific research is to act?

Method

  • The method clearly written, so that other researchers can replicate experiments or studies with the same results;
  • The method does not only explain the definition of the term but also explains how to conduct research;
  • The method describes location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis;

Writing Style

  • The author should be critical especially on a systematic review of the literature on issues, which are relevant to the field of study.
  • Reviews should be focused on one topic.
  • All exposure must be in English/Arabic and written in god's grammar and coherent.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

 Final Review

  • All review results submitted by reviewers are confidential
  • If you would like to discuss the article with colleagues, please inform the editor
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues: (1) Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please tell the editor in detail; (2) Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the category of fraud, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please notify the editor

Recommendations

After reviewing the article, please provide recommendations for authors and editors:

  • Accept Submissions (with or without minor revisions): This article is well researched and written and on topics important to the field and journal, without significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require a little extra on its theoretical or scientific background, or it may need to be edited, but it does not require significant additional research or restructuring.
  • Revision required: The article is an important topic for the field and journal but requires some additional research or rewriting before it is worthy of publication. The review identifies some gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo some reorganization or writing. However, reviewers are confident that the revision can be successfully completed under the supervision of the journal editor.
  • Resubmit for Review: The article addresses topics that are important to the field and journal, but require significant additional research or rewriting before they are suitable for publication. The review identifies some substantial gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers feel that these necessary revisions are significant enough that the article should be resubmitted for additional rounds of review.
  • Reject: The article addresses topics with limited relevance to fields and journals, and/or requires significant additional research or rewriting before they are eligible for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies several significant gaps in the analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: and/or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers have little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed within a reasonable time frame.

Complete the "Review" before the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations for the article will be considered when the editor makes the final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.

When you write a comment, please show you a section of the comment that is only intended for the editor and a part that can be returned to the author. Feel free to contact the editorial office if there are any questions or problems you may encounter.