Reviewer Criteria and Responsibilities

First: Reviewer Selection Criteria

The journal’s Editorial Board carefully selects reviewers according to academic and professional criteria that ensure the quality, integrity, and objectivity of the peer-review process. The main criteria include:

  • The reviewer should be a specialist in the subject area of the manuscript or in a closely related field.

  • The reviewer should possess appropriate academic qualifications and research experience in their area of specialization.

  • Preference is given to reviewers with experience in scholarly publishing and peer review.

  • The reviewer should demonstrate independence, impartiality, and objectivity in evaluating manuscripts.

  • The reviewer should have no direct relationship or personal, financial, or institutional interest in the author or the manuscript under review.

  • The reviewer must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not disclose its contents, the identity of the author, or use information obtained from the manuscript for personal or research purposes.

  • The reviewer should adhere to the deadline specified for completing the review and notify the Editorial Board promptly if they are unable to complete the assignment.

  • The reviewer should decline the assignment if the subject of the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or professional experience.

Second: Reviewer Responsibilities

The reviewer is responsible for providing an independent and objective scientific assessment of the assigned manuscript in accordance with the journal’s review criteria and guidelines. The reviewer’s responsibilities include:

  1. Assessing the originality and scientific significance of the manuscript and its contribution to advancing knowledge in the relevant field.

  2. Assessing the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s scope, subject area, and academic focus.

  3. Evaluating the scientific methodology and its appropriateness to the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses.

  4. Assessing the validity of the analysis and results and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence and data presented.

  5. Evaluating the clarity and logical organization of the manuscript and the coherence of its various sections.

  6. Reviewing tables, figures, maps, and data, where applicable, to ensure their clarity, accuracy, and relevance to the research.

  7. Reviewing references and citations for their relevance, adequacy, currency, and consistency with the subject of the manuscript.

  8. Identifying scientific or methodological weaknesses and errors and providing clear, constructive comments that can assist the author in improving the manuscript.

  9. Reporting any suspected plagiarism, substantial textual similarity, or other potential violations of research and publication ethics, providing supporting evidence or relevant indications where possible.

  10. Providing a clear editorial recommendation regarding the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s established review options and procedures, supported by appropriate scientific comments.

Third: Peer-Review Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript or any part of its content with any other person without permission from the Editorial Board.

  • Use data, ideas, findings, or other information contained in the manuscript for personal or research purposes prior to publication.

  • Contact the author directly regarding the manuscript without prior authorization from the Editorial Board.

  • Disclose the identity of the author or any information relating to the peer-review process.

  • Allow another person to conduct the review on their behalf without prior approval from the Editorial Board.

In the event of a conflict of interest, insufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript, or inability to complete the review within the specified period, the reviewer should promptly notify the Editorial Board and decline the assignment.

Fourth: Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should generally consider the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty.

  • Scientific significance and academic value.

  • Clarity of the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses.

  • Soundness of the scientific methodology.

  • Accuracy of the analysis and interpretation of results.

  • Strength of the conclusions and their consistency with the findings.

  • Quality of documentation and references.

  • Clarity, organization, and academic presentation.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • Relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope.

The journal emphasizes that the reviewer’s role is to provide an objective scientific assessment and constructive recommendations, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editorial Board in accordance with the journal’s policies and established procedures.