1. The scientific evaluator' main task is to read the research submitted for publishing, which is within his scientific specialization, with great care, and evaluate it according to a scientific and academic vision and perspective that is not subject to any personal opinions, then put his constructive and honest observations regarding the research sent to him.
2. Before starting the evaluation process, the evaluator ensures whether the research sent to him is within his scientific specialization or not. If the research is within his scientific specialization, he should estimate that he has enough time to complete the evaluation process; since the evaluation process should not exceed fifteen days.
3. After the evaluator agrees to fulfill the evaluation process, and completes it within the specified period, he is committed to fulfill it according to the following determinants:
A. Determine the extent of scientific integrity of the research.
B. Determine the extent of conformity between the title and the content of the research.
C. Determine the extent of clarity of the research abstract.
D. Determine the extent of the research introduction clarification to the research idea.
E. Determine the extent to which the introduction of the research clarifies its idea.
F. Determine the extent of suitability and coherence of the subtitles.
G. Determine the extent of the scientific level of the research.
H. Determine the extent of the linguistic and literary level.
I. Determine the extent of the value of the sources and the accuracy of relying on them.
J. Determine the extent of the research importance and authenticity, in terms of mechanism and results.
K. Determine the extent of the research size.
L. Determine the extent of the research suitability for publishing.
Q. Determine, accurately, the paragraphs that need to be modified by the researcher.
4. The evaluator determines the reasons for rejection, if he decides that the research is not suitable for publishing.
5. The evaluation process is conducted confidentially.
6. If the first evaluator wants to discuss the research with the second evaluator, he must inform the editor-in-chief.
7. The scientific evaluator’s comments on the research are sent to the editor-in-chief to be sent to the researcher if any, so that the author can take them into consideration for approval of publishing, without the evaluator and the researcher knowing each other.
8. The evaluators’ comments and recommendations are relied upon in the decision to approve the publishing of the research or not.
addcomment