Misan Journal of Political and International Studies seeks to overcome the obstacles and difficulties facing scientific reviewers. Therefore, the editorial board has developed a number of matters and observations that the scientific reviewer can follow, which are:

Firstly, in the procedures:

The scientific reviewer must have an account on the journal’s platform by registering on the platform, and thus he will have an account as a reviewer and author at the same time.
The arbitrator receives an email via his email address in which he registered on the platform from the editor-in-chief notifying him that he has been assigned to arbitrate the research.
The evaluator responds to the email received to notify the journal that he has received the research and has accepted consideration for his evaluation.
The evaluator is requested to ensure that the title of the research matches his precise scientific specialization or general specialization, at the very least.
Download the research on your electronic device and start reading the research.
After completing reading the research, the referee begins the process of evaluating the research by filling out the form attached to the letter that will be sent to him via email from the editor-in-chief.
If the arbitrator has any other notes, he writes them down on a separate sheet of paper and sends them through the platform, as the platform allows the arbitrator to attach files of notes, write opinions and corrections to the research, and then re-send the research.
The resident must complete the evaluation and re-search within one week of receipt.
After sending the research by the arbitrator, he will be notified by email of receipt of the research.
After receiving the research, the editor-in-chief sends the research and notes to the author, and the latter must fully and literally adhere to all notes and take them into account.
After making corrections and re-sending the research by the author, the editor-in-chief will review the researcher’s commitment to taking into account the observations contained in the evaluation form.

Secondly, in evaluation/arbitration:

The main task of the scientific evaluator/reviewer of submitted research for publication is to read the research that falls within his scientific specialization very carefully and evaluate it according to academic scientific insights and perspective that is not subject to any personal opinions and to establish his constructive comments about the research sent to him.

Before starting the evaluation process, the evaluator must verify whether the research sent to him falls within his scientific specialty or not. If the research is within his scientific specialty, does the evaluator have sufficient time to complete the evaluation process, as the evaluation process must not exceed a week, after the evaluator’s approval. To conduct the evaluation process and complete it within the specified period, please conduct the evaluation process according to the following specifications:

A statement of whether the research summary clearly describes the content and idea of the research.
Does the introduction to the research accurately describe what the author wants to achieve and clarify, and does the author explain in it what the problem is that he studied?
The author discusses the results he reached during his research in a scientific and convincing manner.
The evaluation process must be conducted confidentially and the author must not be informed of any aspect of it.
If the evaluator wants to discuss the research with another evaluator, the editor-in-chief must be informed of this.
There should be no direct correspondence and discussions between the evaluator and the author regarding his research sent for publication, and the evaluator’s comments must be sent to the author via the editorial director of the journal.
If the evaluator believes that the research is derived from previous studies, the evaluator must explain those studies to the editor-in-chief of the journal.
The evaluator’s scientific observations and recommendations will mainly depend on whether the research is accepted for publication or not. The evaluator is also requested to point out precisely the paragraphs that need simple modification that can be done by the editorial board, and those that need fundamental modification that must be done by the author himself. .
Is the research so original and important that it should be published in the journal?
Whether the research is consistent with the general policy of the journal and its publishing regulations.
Is the research idea addressed in previous studies? If yes, please indicate those studies.
The extent to which the research title expresses the research itself and its content.
The evaluator must adhere to the process of transparent arbitration and specialized scientific review (Peer-reviewed) according to the form approved by the Misan Journal of Political and International Studies, attached to the research or available on the journal’s website.