Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references. The reviewer has:

  • To ensure that the article’s title is identical and compatible in both Arabic and English and in the event that they do not match, suggest an alternative title.
  • The reviewer should clarify whether the discussion of the results was sufficient and logical.
  • to show the extent to which the article refers to solid scientific references and their modernity.
  • The reviewer must clearly indicate one of three options:

The article is valid for publication without modifications.

B- The article is valid for publication after making some modifications.

C -The article is not suitable for publication.

  • To write what are the basic notes about the article in a separate paper.

7- The reviewer has the right to request that the article be returned to him after making the required notes to ensure that the article adheres to the themes.

8- The reviewer must write his name, academic degree, address, and date of conducting the evaluation, along with signing the evaluation form sent to him, along with the research sent to him for evaluation.

9- The reviewer must answer the following questions :

Does the article summary explain the content?

Did the author explain the problem and did he find appropriate solutions?

Did the author discuss the results he reached during his research in a scientific and convincing manner?

Is the author consistent with the general policy of the journal and its publishing regulations?

Has the author's idea been addressed in previous studies? If yes, please indicate those studies.