Notes For Editors

The in-depth examination phase is one of the indispensable components of scientific progress. Evaluations made by independent scientists serve as recommendations to the editorial board of Nazariyat Journal about publishing the best articles. Articles are subject to a completely confidential evaluation process.
Both the author staff and the readership of Nazariyat Journal are international, and the referees who evaluate the articles are carefully selected from the worldwide academic community. The names of the referees are kept confidential and can only be known by the editors, who must also remain confidential. All applications and works for publication are evaluated impartially, regardless of the race, gender, religious views, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation, age or reputation of the authors.

Duties of Editors

Publication Decision
Impartiality
Security
Disagreements and Statements
Participating in Research Collaboration
Editors' Statement of Opinion
Nazariyat Magazine asks its editors to write a short statement about their views that could potentially influence their unbiased evaluations. Such transparency is an ethical duty owed to authors and readers, and is an equal counterpart to the expression of opinion expected from authors, referees and book reviewers. Editorial staff are expected to distance themselves from decision-making arrangements that could potentially create disagreement.

Selection and Duties of Persons to Make the Evaluation
The staff who evaluate the works of Nazariyat Magazine are selected from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the articles. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All people who will make the evaluations are informed about what Nazariyat Magazine expects from them. Each person is asked to fill out an evaluation form and, if necessary, prepare a separate report. Individuals who disagree on the subject of any article are not eligible to review that article (e.g., those who contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or are unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; are also employees of, or competitors of, the institution whose work is being reviewed. , people with particular political and ideological views). These people must contact the editorial board and state any possible disagreement/conflict of interest before the article is submitted to the referee committee.
Evaluations are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, timely and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality evaluation are:

Evaluators should identify the weak and strong aspects of the work structure and methodology and express their comments on them.
Evaluators should accurately and constructively criticize the author's skill in handling data (taking into account that the data may be limited).
Evaluators should identify its strengths and weaknesses as a written communication tool, regardless of the study's design, methodology, results, and treatment.
Evaluators should express their opinions about whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or low scientific standards.
Reviewers should make useful recommendations to authors so that the work can be improved.
Reviewers' criticisms should be constructive and professional towards the author.
The review should provide the editor with an accurate perspective and context so that he or she can decide whether to accept (and/or revise) the work.
Reviewers are expected to identify studies that do not use citations and use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Reviewers should also report any striking similarities between the manuscript reviewed and any work published in another journal or referenced in Nazariyat Journal.
Reviewers are strictly expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; But the opinions of these experts may not be the same as the editor's final decision on the article in question. Seeking advice, even partial, from a referee may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.
Development of the Evaluation Process
Editors of Nazariyat Journal routinely review articles for quality. Rating of evaluation quality and other performance characteristics of evaluators are reviewed at regular intervals to ensure optimal Nazariyat Journal efficiency. Performance measures, such as review completion time, should be used to review changes in processes that will contribute to the journal's efficiency. I'd like to send a message by e-mail