Guidelines for Reviewers of Scientific Journals at Imam Sadiq University (A.S)

Scientific journals at Imam Sadiq University (A.S) work with the mission of selecting and publishing the highest quality research in relevant fields. In order to achieve this goal, the review process must be accurate and conducted with an impartial approach. The review guidelines have been designed to achieve the goal of building trust in the review and publication process.

Recommendations before reviewing an article:
- Pay attention to the ethical charter of the scientific journals at Imam Sadiq University (A.S).
- Review the process of article acceptance in the scientific journals at Imam Sadiq University (A.S).

Pay attention to the following points:
1. The articles submitted to the journal have already undergone initial review by the editor-in-chief of the journal. If there are any inconsistencies with the goals and policies of the journal, you should promptly inform the editor-in-chief.
2. To avoid bias, the names of authors and reviewers are not disclosed (double-blind peer review).
3. If there is a conflict of interest for the reviewer(s), you should promptly inform the editor-in-chief.
4. The articles are checked for plagiarism using the Siminor plagiarism detection system. If there is evidence or suspicion of plagiarism, you should promptly inform the editor-in-chief.
5. Reviewers are required to submit their review results within a maximum of 30 days.
6. A reminder will be sent to the reviewers 10 days after the article is submitted.
7. If the review results are not received within 30 days after sending the article to the reviewers, a second reminder will be sent to them.
8. If the reviewers do not submit their review results within 10 days of the second reminder or provide a valid reason, the article will be sent to other reviewers.
9. If the reviewer requests major revisions, this request will be sent to the corresponding author by the journal office. After receiving a response and supporting documents, the revised article will be sent to the reviewer.
10. If the reviewer requests minor revisions, this request will be sent to the corresponding author by the journal office. After receiving a response and supporting documents, the revised article will be sent to the editor-in-chief.
11. In the re-review process, the reviewer is required to provide their opinion on the acceptability of the revisions or the need for further revisions within 15 days.
12. In the re-review process, the reviewer(s) should not raise new issues unless significant new issues have arisen as a result of the revisions and changes made by the authors.
13. If the reviewer accidentally identifies the authors of the article, they should conduct the review without disclosing this issue and in an impartial manner.
14. If the authors accidentally identify the reviewer(s) of the article, they should make the revisions without disclosing this issue.
15. The article is sent for review by at least two reviewers, and the decision is made as follows, with the result being communicated to the corresponding author:
 - If both reviewers consider the article acceptable for publication, it will be reviewed for final decision in a meeting of the editorial board or by the editor-in-chief (as the scientific representative of the journal and a member of the editorial board).
 - If both reviewers consider the article not acceptable for publication, it will be reviewed for final decision in a meeting of the editorial board or by the editor-in-chief (as the scientific representative of the journal and a member of the editorial board).
 - If there is a disagreement between the two reviewers, the article will be sent to a third reviewer based on the editor-in-chief's opinion.