Reviewer Guidelines

I. Peer Review Policy

The journal "Gulani" employs a strict Double-Blind Peer Review process. This means that the identities of the reviewers and the authors are mutually unknown throughout the entire evaluation cycle. This method ensures objective and impartial assessment.

Summary of the Process:

  • Desk Review: The editor checks the submitted article for thematic relevance, adherence to formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism.

  • Expert Selection: Each manuscript is sent to a minimum of two qualified, independent experts.

  • Review Deadline: Reviewers are given a standard period of 21 days (3 weeks).

  • Decision: The final decision is made by the editor based on the recommendations provided by the reviewers.

II. Ethical Obligations of the Reviewer

The journal adheres to the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

  • Conflict of Interest: If a reviewer has any personal, financial, or professional connection to the author or the content of the article, they must immediately inform the editorial office and decline the review.

  • Confidentiality: The submitted manuscript is confidential material. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing the article's content, details, or evaluation with third parties.

  • Identity Protection: Reviewers are requested to refrain from disclosing their identity in their comments.

III. Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines

Dear Reviewer, your expert assessment is crucial for maintaining the scientific standards of our journal.

When evaluating the manuscript, please be guided by the journal’s scientific standards and pay attention to the following criteria:

1. General Requirements

  • Topicality and Originality: The extent to which the paper's topic is current and original within the given scientific field.

  • Relevance: The degree to which the article's profile corresponds to the journal's thematic scope and whether the title accurately reflects the content.

2. Scientific Quality

  • Methodology: The adequacy and soundness of the research methods employed for the stated objectives.

  • Argumentation: The persuasiveness of the argumentation of the results and whether the findings raise any doubts.

  • Conclusions: Whether the conclusions are based on and accurately reflect the research results.

3. Technical Requirements

  • Formatting: Whether the technical formatting of the article (citation style, footnotes, bibliography) complies with the norms established by the journal.

  • Abstract: Whether the abstract meets the journal's requirements (structure, length).

IV. Provision of Comments

Please complete all mandatory fields in the review form and provide detailed, constructive comments for the author that will facilitate the improvement of the manuscript. Your comments should be clear and objective.