Peer Review Process

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.

As a reviewer you will be advising the editors (Editor-in-Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.

You should also:

Write clearly. Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers. Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments. If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are. Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. .

Privacy and Confidentiality

All manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or delete copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

The peer review is done through Double-blind method, considering the following issues:

  • Papers are submitted anonymously and author information is sent in a separate file via the journal website.
  • Initial review by expert.
  • Submitted papers not meeting authorship requirements will be returned to the authors within 3 days.
  • The Editor-in-Chief pre-screens submissions to check that they comply with journal scope and match with the article classifications used by the journal.
  •  File archive created in system.
  • Appointment of reviewer by Editorial Board.
  • Paper is archived by name in appropriate file.
  • Electronic review form is posted on website.
  • Review form and anonymous article are electronically sent to reviewer through the website. In certain cases, hard copy is sent to reviewer.
  • Review file created online.
  • Weekly meetings to reject submissions that are out of the journal scope or of lower enough quality to not merit review to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Recommendations made by reviewers to the Editor-in-Chief and Director in order to facilitate editorial process.
  • Weekly reports to Editor-in-Chief for executive purposes.
  • Reviewer comments are forwarded to the authors.

On Acceptance and Publication

  • History and document article files created.
  • Review record created.
  • Certificate of approval to publish awarded to authors by Director.
  • Certificate of judgment awarded to reviewers by Editor-in-Chief.
  • Final review to make sure paper complies with instructions provided in the guide for authors.
  • Paper sent back to authors to make appropriate changes before print.
  • Receive revised paper.
  • Managerial approval to submit to Editor-in-Chief.
  • Review and reassessment by Editor-in-Chief.
  • Suggestions and amendments by Editor-in-Chief.
  • Paper re-sent to author to address shortcomings.
  • Editorial dashboard reset with Farsi and English index.
  • Translate abstract to English.
  • Technical revisions.
  • Pages re-checked.
  • Layout and reset characters.
  • Submit report to editor for preliminary proceedings.
  • Permission granted by Editor-in-Chief and Director to publish article on website.
  • Upload final version of file on journal website.
  • Send electronic files to University Publication Department.