Peer review processes, policies and obligation  

It includes the following main elements:-

General information:-

1.The following types in reviewed by contribution who go to Tadabbur journal by peers: Scientific research, Scientific articles; issues raised by The editorial board are written by specialists in related fields by meditate of The Glorious Qur’an.

2. Forums reports and related conferences don’t submit with meditate of the Glorious Qur’an summarize of distinguished scientific massages in related fields by meditate of the Glorious Qur’an back to peers review , But it submit for The journal editor from the president and editorial board They’re the once who decides publication or not.

3.And we welcome for any questions and general comments about the peer review process or journal or editorial policies which aren’t covered here‚ We encourage reviewers for call us.     

4.Please, ask questions about research or specific article to editor who dealing with research or article through the journal’s email.

5.A strong and good peer review process which is being conduted supports research process and distinctive scientific discoveries by ensuring that the search results are strong and trustworthy so Tadabbur journal always seeks with great care when choosing peer reviewers.

Review research and articles through the open journal system-

 

• We want from peers reviewers send forums through account and journal website open journal system in its version (3.3) online security by following the link in the email There’s an online help guide to help guide is available to help use this system. We welcome sending any message through email of primary contact address of the journal for any problems.

Selection of peer arbitrators:

1.The selection of an arbitrator is critical to the publication process, and is selected of many factors, including experience, reputation , specific recommendations, and our previous experience in the characteristics of the arbitrator, for example, we choose arbitrators who are quick and constructive criticism, whether they are highly critical or tolerant.

 

2.We check with potential arbitrators before sending research to them for evaluation.

3.Arbitrators should keep in mind that these research and articles contain confidential information, which should be treated as such confidential.

4.Tadabbur journal is committed to diversity, fairness and inclusion when selecting peer arbitrators.

5.The journal seeks the diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers.

 

    Arbitrators registration:

• Arbitrators must register as arbitrator in the journal website, and academics from various Islamic universities and foreign in rank professor, associate professor or assistant professor, Register on the website of Tadabbur journal as arbitrators, according to the following steps:

1. Access the website for registering the account in Tadabbur journal.
2. When registering the arbitrator on the journal’s website, it is recommended to check the three options below in order for the arbitrator to be registered among the accredited arbitrators, and to receive a notification to the arbitrator’s e-mail when a new issue of the journal is issued, noting that the field of arbitration interests (the field of specialization of the research evaluated by the arbitrator is filled).
3. The arbitrator registered on the journal’s website must attach necessary information about him, such as his account in the following sites: (Google Scholar – ORCID- Scopus ID) to help the editorial board to ensure the arbitrator’s specialization and eligibility to arbitrate the journal’s research according to the scope of the journal.

 

Arbitration instructions:

For more guidance on arbitration instructions using OJS arbitration instructions , please see the following link: Arbitration Instructions

Arbitrators registration on ORCID- website:

 Due to the importance of the ORCID website, the arbitrator is requested To register an account in it, and then link his account to his account on the Tadabbur Journal website by synchronizing between them, please go to The following link: Introducing the Orcide website Register – ORCID Insert

Report Writing by Peer Arbitrators:

The primary purpose of a review is to provide editors with the Information needed to reach a decision but the review should also guide The authors on how to strengthen their paper to the point that may be Acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review of authors should explain the main Weaknesses of the research or article, so that rejected authors can Understand the basis of the decision, and see what needs to be done in General to improve the research or article for publication elsewhere. Editor’s confidential comments are welcome, but they should not conflict With key points as stated in the comments to be sent to authors. The journal asks the referees the following questions, to provide an appropriate Assessment of the various scientific and technical aspects of the research or Article submitted to the journal for arbitration:

9. Does the content match the title of the research or article?
10. Did the researcher adhere to the research outline?
11. Has the personality of the researcher emerged, with his ability to Analyze and deduce?
12. Is the presentation, its organization and the interconnection of its parts appropriate?
13. Is the research or article spared from linguistic and spelling errors?
14. Are there scientific additions in the research or article?
15. Have the subject subjects been linked to the areas of reflection?
16. Are the research references or article sufficient with their diversity?
17. Is the research or article accurate and well documented?

10.Are the results of the research or article clear?

11.Is there anything that violates the scientific honesty of the researcher?

12.What are the most prominent features (if any) over the research or article?

13. What are the general notes on the research or article?

14.Has the research been previously published in another journal (to the knowledge of the referee)?

15.What are the detailed notes on the research or article?

16.Is there a number of spelling and grammatical errors in this research or article that prevent them from being published in their current form? What are your detailed notes on the research or article?

17.Does the research or article contain any inflammatory material or any inappropriate or potentially defamatory language?

18.Does the research or article refer to previous literature “references and scientific sources” appropriately?

19.If not, which references should be included or excluded?

20.Is the abstract clear and reflects the content of the research?

21.Are the keywords fixed after the research summary in a sufficiently expressive manner?

22.Are the introduction, results and recommendations appropriate to The content of the research?

23.Originality and relevance: If the conclusions are not original, Please provide relevant references.

24.Please comment on the correctness of the approach, data quality, and display quality.

25.Reviewers are encouraged to review all data contained in the research or article, including any extended data and supplementary Information.

26.Do you find the results and interpretation of the data to be robust, correct and reliable?

27.Please clarify any concerns that you think may have an impact on This commitment.

28.Please indicate which particular piece of research or article you feel Is outside your expertise, or that you have not been able to fully evaluate.

29. Please address any other specific question the editor asks through the open Journal System or email.

30.The introduction of the research includes previous studies (with adequate presentation) that are adequate and close to the research topic.

31.Is the method and procedures in the research appropriate and Presented sequentially and clearly.

32.Are the results presented well, clearly, and understandably?

33.Are tables and figures clear, if any, necessary, adequate, not Confusing, and appropriate to the title and content?

34.Are the results discussed in a good, clear, logical and relevant way To the research results?

35.Is citation of sources clear, appropriate, and in the style of the Chicago system?

36.Is it necessary to amend or clarify some paragraphs of the research, Exclude them, or lack of importance? Is the number of search Words appropriate, and compatible with the content?

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order; they must document the process of evaluating the arbitrators.

When issuing the final recommendation of the research, peer arbitrators should choose one of the following options:

• Accept the research in its current form: The research is ready for publication without modification.
• The research is appropriate but needs modifications: The research needs minor modifications that the editor can review and accept.
• Re-judging and evaluating the research: The research requires substantial modifications and must be sent back to us after the modifications have been made by the researcher.
• Submitting the research elsewhere: The research does not fit the journal’s orientations and field of specialization.
• Research rejection: The research is very weak and cannot be accepted for publication in its current form.

 

Artificial intelligence and its use by peer arbitrators:

• Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing, Expert assessments and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible.
• Peer reviewers are selected primarily by editors because of their in-depth knowledge of the topic or methods of work they are asked to evaluate, This experience is invaluable and irreplaceable.
• Peer reviewers are responsible for the accuracy and opinions expressed in their reports, and the peer review process works on the principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors.
• Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have significant limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce meaningless, biased, or false information.
• The research or article may also include sensitive or private information that should not be shared outside of the peer review process.
• For these reasons, we ask peer reviewers not to upload the research or article to generative AI tools.
• If any part of the evaluation of the claims contained in the research or article is supported in any way by the AI tool, we ask peer referees that any uses of these tools should be transparently indicated in the peer review report.

Peer, Peer, Peer or Reviewer Policies, Processes and Obligationsُُ:

All research received in Tadabbur journal   is subject to a full review by the peers of the “arbitrators” anonymous arbitration by the researcher and the arbitrator, and its most important characteristics are the following :

 

First: General processes during the evaluation processُ:

• Tadabbur journal follows a double-blind peer review policy. This process assists the editor-in-chief and editorial board in making decisions and may help the author improve research .
• All research received for a journal is reviewed by at least two suitably qualified “double-blind” experts .
• All research is evaluated by arbitrators fairly based on the intellectual content of the research regardless of gender, race, citizenship, any other non-scientific considerations or authors .

 

Second: Arbitrators’ Obligations during the evaluation Process:

1.Reviewers shouldn’t accept a review of a research or article in which they have a conflict of interest as a result of competitive, cooperative or otherwise relationships with the author(s), should refrain from arbitration and inform the editorial board.

2.Reviewers should inform the editorial board in the event of any possible violations or incidents that violate international ethical standards.

3.Reviewers should evaluate the research based on scientific criteria and clarify this with supporting arguments, and personal criticism of the researcher is prohibited.

4.The referees evaluate the research and its compliance with the requirements of

The scientific and technical journal according to what was mentioned above in the report writing element.

5.Upon receipt of any information that maybe a reason for refusing to publish a research, the arbitrator shall disclose it and report it to the editorial board to take

The necessary action regarding the research.

6.Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research or article submitted to him must notify the editor-in-chief and withdraw from the evaluation and arbitration process.

7.All reviewers who conduct peer review on behalf of Tadabbur journal are required

To understand and ad here to the confidentiality standards related to the review process.

8.Reviewers should treat research or articles they receive for review (evaluation) as

Confidential documents. They mustn’t disclose or discuss them with others except as authorized by the editor-in-chief. 9.Reviewers (arbitrators) should conduct the review process objectively and shouldn’t direct any personal criticism of the author. They are also required to express their views clearly while highlighting supporting arguments.

10.Reviewers inform the editor-in-chief of any significant similarity or overlap between the reviewed research or article and any other published work they have knowledge of.

11.Peer arbitrators mustn’t use any information or data obtained from the research or reviewed article for their personal benefit.

12.Peer reviewers aren’t required to review research or articles that do not fall within the scope of the journal.

Third: Obligations of the management and editorial board during the evaluation process:

1.All information related to research is confidential and not used for any commercial purposes or for personal gain, and the Authority takes the necessary measures to maintain this before and after the arbitration process.

2.Members of the journal’s international advisory board provide insights, advice and guidance to president  and editorial board in general, and also to assist in deciding on specific missions.

3.Managing editors and editorial assistants provide     administrative support that allows : to Tadabbur journal to maintain the integrity of double-blind review, while providing rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency for authors, reviewers and editors alike.

4.The names and affiliations of the arbitrators are kept in a secure database that complies with data protection standards, as outlined in the journal’s privacy policy.

5.Peer review, editing, copyediting and revision typically takes one to two months.

6.It is revealed in The journal’s website “Open Journals System” – in the arbitrator’s account – the arbitration schedule for “peer” arbitrators, and includes the date of sending the research to the arbitrator, the date of the response from him with approval or not, Its duration is “seven days”, and the date of receipt of the arbitration result, provided that it does not exceed one month from sending the research to the arbitrator.

 7.All publication decisions are made by the editorial board of the journal on the basis of peer reviews, and then the decision is sent to the author(s) within the period specified for the researcher from the beginning of receiving his research or article.

 

8. Regarding the editing of referees’ reports: Tadabbur journal does not block any element of the reviewers’ reports, and any comments intended for the authors are transferred, regardless of the journal’s opinion on the content. Except in rare cases, the journal may make minor adjustments to the reviewers’ report to remove offensive language or comments that may reveal confidential information on other matters or reveal the identity of the reviewers; we ask the reviewers to avoid statements or phrases that may cause undue insult to the author or journal; on the contrary, we strongly encourage reviewers to clearly express their opinion during the evaluation.
9. Authors should recognize and understand that criticisms from reviewers aren’t necessarily unfair just to express them in strong language.

 

 update:  9-9-2024