Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers will be selected according to their scientific fields.

Reviewers can review a maximum of two times in one Publication Number.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating the manuscript within their area of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of the submitted article. The peer reviewers assess the strengths of the article, weaknesses of the article, Ways of improvement, Originality, Contribution, Technical Quality, Clarity of Presentation, and Depth of Research.

Before conducting a review, please consider the following:

Is the article being reviewed in your area of expertise?

Do you have time to review this manuscript? The review process should be completed within two weeks.

If you agree then accept the review immediately.

If you feel that the article does not fit your expertise and/or requires more review time, please inform the editor immediately.

Review Process

When reviewing articles, please consider the following:

Title: does the title clearly describe the article?

Abstract: does it reflect the content of the article and conform to the abstract rules?

Introduction: does the introduction reflect the accuracy of the points made by the authors and clearly state the issues discussed? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and describe the research findings or other findings, if any, that are offered for discussion. It should describe the experiments, hypotheses, and methods.

Article Content

Articles that you accept for review have been previously checked by the editorial team using Turnitin as a plagiarism checker and no more than 30% and using Plagiarism Checker X a maximum of 20%.

If the research has been previously conducted by other authors, is it still eligible for publication?

Is the article novel, in-depth enough, and interesting enough to be published?

Does the article contribute to knowledge?

Does the article conform to journal standards?

Scope - Does the article fit the purpose and scope of the journal?

Results:

The article describes the findings of the research. These should be organized clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether the analysis is appropriate or not; the use of statistical tools is appropriate if the research is quantitative.

Discussion:

Are the claims in this section supported by fair and reasonable results?

Does the author compare the results with previous studies?

Do the results contradict previous theories?

Conclusion:

Does the conclusion summarize the research results, research methods, and the success of the research in providing renewable research that is useful for future research.

Methods

Methods are written clearly, so that other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same results;

Methods not only explain the definition of terms but also explain how to conduct the research;

Methods explain the location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis;

Writing Style

The author should be critical especially of the systematic review of the literature on issues relevant to the field of research.

The review should be focused on one topic.

All descriptions should be in English/Arabic and written with good grammar and coherence.

Easy to understand

Interesting to read

Final Review

All reviews submitted by reviewers are confidential.

If you wish to discuss the article with a colleague, please inform the editor by initiating a discussion.

Do not contact the author directly due to ethical issues.

-Plagiarism: if you suspect that the article is largely plagiarized from another author, please inform 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 not true, please inform the editor.

Recommendations

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

Accept the manuscript (with or without minor revisions): The article is well researched and written and on a topic important to the field and the journal, with no significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require slight additions to its theoretical or scientific background, or may need editing, but does not require significant additional research or restructuring.

Requires Major Revision: The article is an important topic for the field and the journal, but requires additional research or rewriting before it is suitable for publication. The review identifies some gaps in the analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo some reorganization or rewriting. However, the reviewer is confident that the revisions can be completed properly under the supervision of the journal editor.

Requires Minor Revisions: Refers to improvements that involve minor aspects of the final project. Usually, minor revisions involve grammar, spelling, or formatting errors. For example, incorrect use of punctuation, inappropriate citations, or an unorganized bibliography.

Reject: The article requires additional research or significant rewriting before it is eligible for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies some 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 rewriting. The reviewers lacked confidence that such revisions could be completed successfully within a reasonable timeframe.

• Reviewers will receive two files: the article to be reviewed by filling in comments directly in the comments field in the text (Ms. Word file) and the Double Blind Review Report.
• Upload both files after filling in the Review File field.
• Select the recommendation Accept the manuscript (with or without minor revisions)/ Requires Major Revisions/ Requires Minor Revisions/ Reject.
• Complete the “Review” before the due date. Your recommendation for the article will be considered by the editor in light of the reviewer's review and your review is greatly appreciated.
• Feel free to contact the editor with any questions or issues you may encounter.