Information for reviewers

  • Reviewer must help the editor in chief and editorial board to examine the articles scientifically, based on their content, and their quality. They also help to improve and promote the quality and content of the papers in the journal office.
  • The selected reviewer should notify the journal whether they accept to review the papers or not (due to the irrelevancy of the topic to their field of expertise, shortage of time, etc,). In case of refusing to review, the reviewer is expected to assist the editor-in-chief in choosing a successor.
  • The reviewer must be expert in the field of the written article. They should not accept to review article which are far from their expertise. The reviewers must not accept to review those articles with which they may find conflict of interest and it eschew their fair judgement.
  • Reviewer must not review the manuscripts written to benefit specific persons, institutions, or companies.
  • Reviewer must not review manuscripts in which they have been involved. 
  • Accepting to review, the reviewers are responsible to comment clearly and give them to the editor-in-chief and authors with supporting documents if needed on due time. Reviewing the references, tables, figures, pictures, and other appendices is also amongst the reviewer’s responsibility.
  • Reviewing process must be based on scientific documents and arguments. Involving personal, racial, religious comments, etc should be avoided.
  • It is expected that the reviewers express their evaluation of the article’s weaknesses and strengths obviously. In addition, they must analyze the articles and give recommendation for editing them to the editor-in-chief and author(s).
  • It is expected that the reviewers be responsible, punctual, enthusiastic, committed to professional ethics, and observe people’s right. They also must refer to credible and appropriate evidences, maintain objectivity, show politeness, and avoid any bias, prejudgments, and prejudices. Clearly explaining to the editor-in-chief whether the article is appropriate to be published is among the other responsibility of a reviewer.
  • The reviewers must not edit a well- written article based on their personal opinions and priorities. The reviewers must note that they have been assigned as reviewers for their scientific expertise not for their editing skill.
  • The reviewers are responsible to evaluate the references on their exactness. The reviewers also must remind the researcher of the related work which is not yet cited in the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should ask the author(s) to cite international, credible, and new sources as much as possible.
  • The reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and avoid sharing the reviewed article or discussing about its details.
  • The reviewers must not use the data and new concepts obtained through the reviewing process for or against their own or others’ research. They also must not use the information for criticizing or discrediting the author(s) before the article is published.
  • The reviewer must not involve anyone else including their colleagues or graduate students they are mentoring in the review of a manuscript without editor in chief’s permission. The names of any individuals who have assisted the reviewers in reviewing should be included in the returned review so that their names to be recorded.
  • The reviewers must not directly contact the authors for the article during reviewing process. Any contact must be made by the journal’s office.
  • The reviewers must report any occurrence of the misconduct in publishing or in research. Related evidence should be presented to the editor-in-chief.