Reviewer Guidelines

The main task of a scientific reviewer for manuscripts submitted for publication is to carefully read the manuscript—provided it falls within their academic specialization—and evaluate it objectively and academically, free from any personal opinions. The reviewer must provide honest and constructive feedback on the manuscript.

Before assigning a paper for review, the editorial team must ensure the reviewer’s full readiness to evaluate the submitted research, confirm that the manuscript lies within their academic field, and verify that they have sufficient time to complete the review. If any of these conditions are not met, the journal will assign an alternative reviewer.

If the reviewer agrees to evaluate the manuscript, they must complete the reading and review within the assigned period, following the guidelines below:

1- The review process must not exceed ten (10) days, to avoid negatively impacting the author.

2- The reviewer must not disclose any manuscript information for any reason during or after the review process, unless written permission is granted by both the author and the Editor-in-Chief, or once the paper is published.

3- The reviewer must not use any manuscript content for personal gain or to harm the author or their affiliated institutions.

4- The reviewer must disclose any potential conflict of interest.

5- The reviewer must not be influenced by the author's nationality, religion, gender, or any other personal factors.

6- Is the research original and significant enough to merit publication in the journal?

7- Does the manuscript align with the journal’s general policy and publication guidelines?

8- Has the research topic been addressed in previous studies? If so, the reviewer should indicate those studies.

9- To what extent does the title reflect the content and essence of the manuscript?

10- Does the abstract clearly describe the research content and idea?

11- Does the introduction clearly express what the author intends to explain or clarify? Does it clearly present the research problem?

12- Has the author discussed the findings of their research in a scientific and convincing manner?

13- The review process must be conducted in strict confidentiality, and the author must not be exposed to any part of it.

14- If the reviewer wishes to discuss the manuscript with another reviewer, they must inform the Editor-in-Chief.

15- The reviewer’s scientific feedback and recommendations play a key role in the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewers should clearly indicate:
— Sections requiring minor revisions that can be handled by the editorial team.
— Sections requiring major revisions that must be addressed by the author.