Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please consider the following:

1. Does the article match your academic specialty? Only accept when you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

2. Do you have a potential conflict of interest with the article and its author?

3. Do you have enough time to review?

 

How to Peer Review in This Journal

The reviewer's report should contain a comprehensive academic assessment of the papers and not merely scattered statements. The following points could be included in the review report:

1. The general framework of the papers.

2. The theoretical part.

3. The practical part and its analysis.

4. Conclusions and recommendations.

5. Documentation.

 

Adab AlRafidayn's policy encourages reviewers to help researchers improve and enrich their articles and papers. Therefore, the report should provide solutions for the problems. When the reviewers do not want to identify themselves with the researchers, they could send their remarks to the Editor-in-chief, who sends them to the researchers.  Although the review differs from one person to another, the following aspects should be taken into consideration in all cases:

1. Is the topic of the study previously studied or not?

2. Are the study's samples sufficient?

3. Is there a need for ethical approval to conduct the study?

4. Is the study methodology suitable to answer the study's questions?

5. Does the analysis of the study contain a clear and accurate idea to answer the questions and hypotheses of the study?

6. Are all the study requirements stated in a way that they could represent the results of the study?

7. Are the statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?

8. Are the figures and tables clear and accurately represent the results?

9. Have the previous studies been discussed and compared to the results of other studies?

10. Are there any misdocumentation or citations?

11. Do the results support the suggested recommendations?

12. Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?

13. Is the abstract an accurate summary of the study?

14. Is the language of the study readable and understandable?

 

To help authors receive timely reviews, the reviewer's report should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact the Editor in chief if they cannot meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged. We encourage reviewers to assess the papers objectively and academically, including the appropriateness of methodology and recommendations that support the results. Comments may also be given on novelty and the study's potential impact. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following:

1. Accepted

2. Minor revision

3. Major revision

4. Rejected

5. Unable to review

 

Confidentiality

 Articles and papers under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share papers or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers may, on their request, consult their colleagues on the content of the study on the condition that the confidentiality of the study is maintained. Reviewers should first contact the Editor-in-chief and note the names of the colleagues in the comments to the Editor section of the report.

 

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review when:

1. Have a financial interest in the subject of the study.

2. Have previously discussed the study with the authors.

3. Feel unable to be objective in the peer review.

 

Application to Review

We appreciate your application to join our membership of peer reviewers. Our Editorial board selects reviewers according to the field of the study and its topics. In each case, they invite the most appropriate reviewers depending on their own specialty and/ or publication list. Interested reviewers should register for a user account to ensure we have your up-to-date information.