Information for Reviewers

Reviewers Considerations:

  • Reviewers in refereed scientific journals is a major factor in the recognition of scientific works.
  • Providing knowledge to the scientific community.
  • Providing promotion and upgrading research with advanced aspects.
  • The judging process provides a basis for advanced future studies.

Reviewers rules:

All research submitted for publication is referred to specialists for scientific review. The research receives final acceptance after the author makes the modifications requested by the arbitrators. However, the responsibility for the contents of the research rests with the authors alone, and the published research expresses the viewpoint of its authors and not the view of the journal, and the journal’s editorial board is not responsible for it according to the following principles:

  1. The arbitrator shall be notified of the completion of the research evaluation within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receiving the research.
  2. Ensure that the rank of the scientific arbitrator is higher than the rank of the researcher (in the case of a single author) or the rank of any of the researchers (in the case of multiple authors).
  3. The confidentiality of the researcher's personal information must be maintained during the arbitration process to avoid favoritism and not to interfere with personal relationships and acquaintances in the arbitration process.
  4. The editor-in-chief may choose a third arbitrator in the event that the research is rejected by one of the arbitrators, and he apologizes to the researcher for not publishing the research in the event of his rejection by the arbitrators.
  5. The editorial board has the right to pre-examine the research, decide its eligibility for arbitration, or reject it.
  6. The research shall be considered a withdrawn judgment if the researcher delays making the required amendments to the research for a period exceeding one month from the date of receiving the reply from the journal, unless there is a compelling excuse estimated by the journal’s editorial board.
  7. It is not permissible to publish the research in another scientific journal after it has been approved for publication in the journal.
  8. The researcher may republish his research published in the journal within a book of the researcher after three years of its publication in the journal, provided that he obtains permission from the journal and indicates the source when republishing.
  9. If the researcher does not commit to making the modifications required by the arbitrators and the journal, or withdraws the research before its publication, he shall bear the arbitration fees, postage and other expenses incurred by the journal.
  10. The research that the arbitrators consider that it is necessary to make some amendments or additions to it before publishing it shall be returned to its owners with the specific notes, so that they can work on preparing it finally for publication.
  11. Rejected research informs its owners without giving reasons for rejection.

The criteria used by the arbitrators in the evaluation:

The scientific research arbitration aims to raise the level of scientific research and raise the ceiling of the scientific study achieving its objectives and obtaining the desired results from it:

  • The extent of the originality of the ideas presented by the researcher and the benefits that accrue to society, and the absence of reasons to offend others and the words of extremism.
  • The suitability of the research method and methods.
  • The extent of the search format and the quality of presentation.
  • The researcher's commitment to grammatical and spelling rules and the need for linguistic proofreading.
  • The extent of the compatibility of the research design with the controls imposed in the journal.
  • The extent of the relationship of the research topic submitted to the journal’s specialization.
  • The objectivity of the study and the value and accuracy of the results.
  • Extent of citation from other studies.

The well-known scientific controls must also be taken into account in the evaluation, the most important of which are:

  • Integrity, avoiding bias, and expressing the correct opinion in scientific arbitration of scientific study
  • Not to conduct scientific arbitration for research that is not related to the researcher's specialization.
  • Provide notes and criticisms in scientific arbitration that would increase the importance of the study, and write notes in their place to be easy for the researcher to modify.
  • Identifying scientific plagiarism and identifying the plagiarized paragraphs for the researcher to reformulate.
  • Differentiate between the error that the researcher may make in documenting the sources and scientific plagiarism.

Reviewers problems:

The problems of arbitration in the publishing process center on many things, and we hope that there is no one of them, and they are summarized in the following points:

  • Bias: that is, inequality between researchers when applying for publication, and discrimination of one researcher from another because of his nationality, language, or race, and sometimes discrimination between men and women, and sometimes bias is for the purpose of unfair competition between researchers.
  • Scientific abuse: It can occur as a result of impersonating another researcher’s idea or an illegal quote, and it can be the result of a researcher’s rush to publish studies that do not achieve the character of real scientific research, or publishing the same research in several journals at the same time under different titles, so we call on the arbitrators not to offend With offensive words that deviate from the ethics of the academic professor, the abuse may occur on the part of the arbitrators by stealing the ideas of researchers that have not yet been published or rejecting them and republishing them in their name.
  • Criticism and Detection of Flaws: Spoken by some arbitrators by deliberately extracting errors and defects that are not valid, to reject the research in order to break the morale of researchers who may be competing with them.