Arbitration Instructions

Reviewer Guidelines

 Below are the conditions and requirements that should be considered by the reviewer for submitted research papers:

  1. Filling a research evaluation form (attached Form No. 4) that includes the following:

- A paragraph regarding the research topic, whether it has been studied before according to your knowledge, and whether there is any direct quotation (indicate if found) or plagiarism, with the location of the plagiarism.

- A detailed technical evaluation table consisting of 24 specific items formulated according to a scale of three options: good (3), acceptable (2), weak (1). The expert should mark one option based on their judgment of the content of each item and should not leave any item unanswered.

- A specific section for the expert's comments on the details of the research or its general fundamentals (scientific or methodological) for the benefit of the researcher.

- Evaluation summary related to the eligibility of publication according to three options: eligible for publication, eligible after making amendments, or not eligible for publication, based on the specified criteria in the form.
- A designated section for documenting the reasons for the research's lack of eligibility for publication if deemed so by the reviewer.

  1. The reviewer should ensure the linguistic compatibility and alignment between the Arabic and English abstracts and propose any necessary amendments.
    3. The reviewer should indicate whether the tables and diagrams used are clear and expressive.
  2. The reviewer should indicate whether the researcher followed the correct statistical approach.
  3. The reviewer should express the opinion on the discussion of the results, whether they are sufficient and logical.
  4. The reviewer should determine the extent of the researcher's use of scientific references.
  5. The reviewer may provide a separate sheet suggesting major amendments for accepting the research.
  6. The expert's signature on the form represents a written commitment that they have scientifically evaluated the research according to objective criteria and that the research deserves the obtained evaluation. Their full name should be recorded in the form.