عربي
Home
About
About
Call For Paper
Journal Copyright
Aim And Scope
Regulations
Regulations of Publication
Regulations of Formatting, Organization & Citation
Regulations for the Authors
Regulations for the Evaluators
Publication Ethics
Boards
Scientific Advisory Board
Editorial Board
Volumes
Volume Six
First Issue 30-03-2025
Volume five
First Issue 30-03-2024
Secound Issue 30-07-2024
Special Issue
Third Issue 30-11-2024
Volume Four
First Issue 30-03-2023
Special Issue 07-05-2023
Secound Issue 27-07-2023
Third Issue 30-11-2023
Volume Three
First Issue 30-03-2022
Secound Issue 30-07-2022
Third Issue 30-11-2022
Volume Two
First Issue 30-03-2021
Secound Issue 30-07-2021
Third Issue 30-11-2021
Volume One
First Issue 23-12-2020
Forms
Piblish Your Paper
contact us
Regulations for Referees
Regulations for Referees
The reviewer must notify the journal of their agreement to review the manuscript submitted for publication within three working days
The reviewer must notify the journal of their refusal to review the manuscript in the event of a mismatch in specialization, or if there is a conflict of interest due to personal, professional, or other relationships with the author(s)
The reviewer must submit a detailed report on the manuscript, including their conclusion, using the designated form available on the journal’s official website, after filling it out with the required feedback. This report will then be sent to the author(s) for response and for making the necessary revisions to the manuscript.
The reviewer must adhere to confidentiality standards throughout the peer review process, refraining from disclosing any information related to the manuscript, including the name of the author or the title of the research.
The reviewer must maintain objectivity and complete impartiality during the review process, and must not insult or disparage the author, regardless of their opinion about the research or its quality.
The reviewer must explain the reason for rejecting a manuscript or specify the required modifications—whether substantial or minor—while clarifying the rationale behind each point
The reviewer must disclose any overlap with other research works, whether partial or complete, and provide justification for rejection if the work is plagiarized or if there is another valid reason for rejection
The journal (editorial board) is committed to ensuring diversity among reviewers by maintaining a database of reviewers known for their integrity and high level of scholarly expertise
The journal is committed to not sending manuscripts to unqualified reviewers, especially those who are unable to justify a rejection or clearly articulate the reasons for acceptance
The referee must notify the Journal on her/his approval to evaluate the research work submitted for publication therein.
The referee must notify the Journal on her/his disapproval to evaluate the research work sent to her/him if there is a mismatch with her/his area of specialty or a conflict of interests by virtue of personal or intellectual relations, etc. with the author(s).
The referee must complete the evaluation process within a maximum period of two weeks, and send a detailed report on the research final evaluation including the result thereof, by way of filling, as requested, a form prepared for this purpose and available on the Journal's website, to be sent off to the author(s) to comment thereon and duly carry out the required amendments.
The referee must comply with the confidentiality standards related to the refereeing process by refraining from leaking any information relevant to the research work sent to her/him- be it on the researcher's name or the research's title.
The referee must comply with the standards of objective refereeing by fully dropping off their subjective mask during the process of refereeing. Also, she/he should not offend or insult the researcher regardless the referee's opinion on the research level of quality.
The referee must show the reason of rejection or the amendment requirements, be they major or minor, alongside with their respective correction.
The referee must reveal any point of intersection with other research works, be they partial or full, together with the justifications thereof (due to plagiarism or the like).
The Journal (Editorial Board) is committed with varying the referees by setting up information bank on a list of renowned impartial and highly-competent ones.
The Journal (Editorial Board) does not send research works to unqualified referees, particularly those who clearly show inability to explain why a research work is rejected or accepted.
The referee must provide the Journal with a bank statement and complete personal information in order to give her/him an honorarium of (60) Jordanian Dinar (or equivalent in US dollars) in return for the refereeing process.