Reviewer Guidelines

• The scientific reviewer must have an account on the journal's platform by registering, thus holding an account as both a reviewer and an author simultaneously; they will receive an email from the editorial board via their registered email notifying them of the assignment to review the article.
• The reviewer must verify that the sent article and its title fall within their precise scientific specialization (or at least the general specialization) before starting the evaluation process to ensure the rigor of scientific results.
• Download the article to an electronic device and begin reading, while adhering to the specified evaluation timeframe; the maximum period for submitting the final report is ten days from the date of receiving the article, providing timely comments to assist editors in making the publishing decision.
• The reviewer must immediately disclose any conflict of interest and decline the review if the author's identity is deduced or known despite anonymization procedures (e.g., if the article is extracted from a thesis supervised or discussed by the reviewer) to ensure the absolute objectivity of the editorial decision.
• After completing the reading of the article, the reviewer starts the evaluation process by filling out the form attached to the email sent by the editorial board.
• State the article's originality, scientific importance, and the cognitive value it adds, clarifying its eligibility for publication in the journal, along with examining the extent to which the article complies with the journal's approved publishing regulations in terms of structure and technical formatting.
• Evaluate the compatibility of the article title with its scientific content, stating the rigor of the introduction in clarifying the research problem and idea, while assessing the validity of the conclusion and results and how well they reflect the article's content and scientific outcomes.
• Precisely indicate previous studies if the article's idea has been addressed before, stating similarities and differences to ensure no duplication; the Editor-in-Chief must be notified immediately if plagiarism is detected from previous studies, with the necessity of identifying and stating those studies.
• If the reviewer has any other notes, they should record them in a separate sheet and send them via the platform; the platform allows the reviewer to attach files for notes and write opinions and corrections for the article before resending it.
• Full commitment to the confidentiality of the evaluation process is required, with no discussion or communication with the article author by any means during the evaluation period to protect scientific integrity.
• Formally inform the Editor-in-Chief if the reviewer seeks assistance from another reviewer or consults them in evaluating the scientific article.
• Extreme accuracy is required in identifying issues and notes that need modification by the author, clarifying them in the evaluation report; the reviewer's recommendations and notes are the fundamental pillar in making the decision to accept or reject publication by the editorial board.
• After the reviewer sends the article, they will be notified via email of the receipt of the article.
• Upon receiving the article, the editorial board sends the article and the notes to the author, who must strictly and literally adhere to all notes; after corrections are made and the article is resent by the author, the editorial board audits the extent of the researcher's commitment to implementing the notes.