Review Guidelines

Peer Reviewer Responsibility

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

Before reviewing, please consider the following:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
  If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.
• 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.
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest? While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

• 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 25% 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?

Method

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

Result:

This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Discussions and conclusions:

• Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? 
• Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? 
• Does the article support or contradict previous theories? 
• Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Writing Style

• The author should be critical, especially in a systematic review of the literature on issues that 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:

Plagiarism: If you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please tell the editor in detail

– 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 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 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 a section of the comment that is only intended for the editor and a part that can be returned to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter