Reviewers Guide

Reviewers Guide

Dear Reviewer

 Please before reviewing an article register in the system and log in with your username and password.   

 In your personal page there are three options:

1. New papers requiring reviewing

2. Papers under review

3. Reviewed papers

If you accept manuscripts sent by editors to review, these papers will appear in the second option.

Articles that their judgment has been completed are is displayed in the third option. In this case it is necessary to complete the online form for evaluation.

It is also possible that comments be sent as a separate file.

Please find below an example of Articles Assessment Form:

  Articles Assessment Form
1.  What is the Type of the  article  ? 
  Research/original(5)  Review (2)  Short paper(2)  Case Study (2) Methodology(2)
2. Do you know of similar works of this article in Persain? (If yes, please name them.)
    Yes                 No
3. Does the paper offers  new scientific findings?   Yes (5)           No (0)
4. Does the study contains two features of originality and innovation?   Yes (5)          No (0)
5. How do you see the article in the scientific sense?  
 Very good (5) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (0)
6. How do you see the article on the induction of concepts?  
 Very good (5) Good (3) Average (2) Poor (0)
7.   Are the references used in the paper are cited from valid sources?  
     Yes (5)       No (0)
8. Does the paper need to be edited?  
      Yes (1)            No (5)
9. How do you assess the quantity of resources?  
Very good (5) Good (3) poor (1)
10. Does the article captioned additions are necessary? Please mention the example.  
 Yes (1)               No (5)
11. With regard to all aspects what is your opinion about the publication of the article [5]
 Acceptable (5)   Not acceptable (0) With the changes mentioned above will be accepted. (1)
12. If the article is acceptable please mention your reasons briefly.
 13. If the paper is not acceptable please mention your main reasons.

Total score


Reviewers Duties

  1. Qualitative-content review of the articles in order to improve and upgrade the scientific level of the articles;
  2. Initial declaration of acceptance or unwillingness to review in the shortest possible time;
  3. The speed of action in reviewing the received article and announcing the result of the evaluation within the period determined by the journal;
  4. Not accepting the refereeing of the articles in which they participated directly or indirectly;
  5. Observance of confidentiality in maintaining the findings of the article before its publication;
  6. Observance of complete neutrality in terms of taste, intellectual, national, ethnic, cultural, economic and ideological viewpoints;
  7. Supporting the results of arbitration with scientific and transparent documentation and arguments;
  8. Sufficient attention to the type of documents, references, sources of the article and the involvement of their originality in the result of the arbitration;
  9. In the face of information theft, the referee will act according to Cope's guidelines;
  10. The referees are obliged to inform the journal (editor) at the earliest possible opportunity if they see any plagiarism and the existence of any similarities in the article under review;
  11. The referees do not have the right to delegate their refereeing and it is not allowed to change the referee without informing and coordinating with the editor;
  12. This journal uses the procedure of accepting peer reviewing articles, which means that in order to observe impartiality, the identity of the authors and reviewers remains hidden from each other in all stages of evaluation and publication of the article;
  13. According to the instructions of the Policy and Planning Office of Research Affairs of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in order to protect the intellectual and copy rights of researchers and authors of scientific articles and to prevent duplicate research, submitting of a similarity report before accepting the article for evaluation is necessary  ;
  14. The reviewers are obliged to inform the journal (Editor-in-Chief) of any contact of the authors and beneficiaries of the article under review, according to the Double Blind Peer Reviewed Policy  of the journal.