The document provides an outline for evaluating research papers and the skills needed for peer review, including an overview of the peer review process, the roles of authors, editors, and reviewers, guidelines for reviewers in evaluating manuscripts, and how to address reviewers' comments in a revised submission.

1. ‫العلمية‬ ‫األبحاث‬ ‫تقييم‬ ‫مهارات‬
‫حسانين‬ ‫رمضان‬ ‫فوزى‬ ‫محمد‬ ‫دكتور‬
‫أ‬‫ستاذ‬
‫العلمي‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫عمادة‬

2. PhD Natural Sciences 2004
PostDoc 2006
PostDoc 2007-2008
PostDoc 2009
Arab distinguished Fellow
PostDoc 2011
PostDoc 2011

3. Visiting Professor
2012
Visiting Professor
2010

4. -‫الدولى‬ ‫بالتحكيم‬ ‫وارتباطة‬ ‫العالمية‬ ‫الدوريات‬ ‫تصنيف‬.
-‫للمحكم‬ ‫البحثية‬ ‫الورقة‬ ‫مؤلف‬ ‫اختيار‬ ‫طرق‬ ‫على‬ ‫التعرف‬
‫المناظر‬Peer reviewer
-‫للمحكم‬ ‫العالمية‬ ‫الدوريات‬ ‫تحرير‬ ‫هيئة‬ ‫اختيار‬ ‫طرق‬ ‫على‬ ‫التعرف‬
‫المناظر‬Peer reviewer
-‫و‬ ‫العالمية‬ ‫الدورية‬ ‫تحرير‬ ‫هيئة‬ ‫و‬ ‫المؤلف‬ ‫بين‬ ‫العالقة‬ ‫على‬ ‫التعرف‬
‫المحكم‬.
-‫العالمية‬ ‫الدوريات‬ ‫فى‬ ‫التقييم‬ ‫واستبيانات‬ ‫قواعد‬ ‫على‬ ‫التعرف‬.
-‫الفنية‬ ‫الناحية‬ ‫من‬ ‫البحثية‬ ‫االوراق‬ ‫تقييم‬Technical check
-‫العلمية‬ ‫الناحية‬ ‫من‬ ‫البحثية‬ ‫االوراق‬ ‫تقييم‬Scientific evaluation
-‫الورقة‬ ‫اجزاء‬ ‫من‬ ‫جزء‬ ‫كل‬ ‫فى‬ ‫تقييمها‬ ‫الواجب‬ ‫النقاط‬ ‫على‬ ‫التعرف‬
‫البحثية‬(‫الملخص‬-‫المقدمة‬-‫الطرق‬-‫النتائج‬-‫المناقشات‬-‫المراجع‬.)
‫العمل‬ ‫ورشة‬ ‫محاور‬

5. The goal is to provide an
outline of the important steps
to follow when reviewing a
manuscript, with focus on the
reviewer’s role in the peer
review process.

6. -Journals with lower article acceptance rates are
considered to be more prestigious.
-The method of calculating acceptance rates varies among
journals.
-Some journals use all manuscripts received as a base for computing
this rate.
-Other journals use manuscripts which sent to reviewers and calculate
the acceptance rate on those.
-Some journals include the acceptance rate in the
“information for authors” on the home pages for the
journal.
Journal Ranking &
Peer Review

7. Publishing process
Manuscript preparation
(article, cover letter, practical applications and research highlights)
Manuscript submission
Manuscript revision
Revised article submission
Decision from the editor
Proof reading and editing
Publishing (online and printed copy)

8. Author
Editor
Reviewer
The reviewer recommends, the editor decides

9. Peer review
is the evaluation of work by one or
more people of similar competence to
the producers of the work (peers).
It constitutes a form of self-regulation
by qualified members of a profession
within the relevant field.

10. Purpose of Peer Review
-To select the best manuscript for the journals.
-To determine the originality of the manuscript.
-To improve the quality of the published papers.
-To ensure that previous work is acknowledged.
-To determine the importance of findings.
-To detect plagiarism
-To detect fraud.
Reviewers are NOT asked to
detect plagiarism,
fraud and other ethics issues
But it would be great if they could and would !!

11. Authors often see peer review as a
terrible hurdle they need to take
before they can published their work
Is this Peer Review !!??

12. Treat all manuscripts as
you would your own
manuscript to be treated
by other reviewers
The best reviewers tend
to see themselves as
teachers or mentors
rather than critics !

13. How can authors
select peer
reviewers?

14. How can editors
select peer
reviewers !!!?

15. Ethics and Peer Review

16. !Scientists wear many hats
Author
Reviewer Editor
Reader

17. What do researchers want
as authors and as readers?
ReaderAuthor
xOwnership
xxCertification (quality stamp)
xDissemination (get noted)
xAccessibility
xxNavigation (indexing)
xArchiving

18. What do authors want from
reviewers?
Fair treatment

19. What do readers want from
reviewers?
Trustworthy articles

20. Fair treatment of authors

21. Peer review
is based on
The peer review process is
based on trust
-trust between authors and editors
-trust between edits and reviewers

22. Reviewer responsibilities
-The article you review is confidential
document.
-The content is and remains the property of
authors.
-Reviewer should not disclose it to others.
-Reviewer must keep it confidential until the
review process has been completed.

23. As a Reviewer,
YOU SHOULD
-not use data/idea reported in the manuscript.
-not communicate directly with authors.
-provide an honest and critical assessment.
-provide suggestions for improvement.
-help the editors to reach a decision
by writing a review report
by recommending Acceptance/Revision/Rejection
-Only accept to review manuscripts
in your area of expertise
when you can complete the review on time

24. Ethics issues in publishing
-Publication misconduct
-Plagiarism
-Duplicate publication
-Duplicate submission
-Appropriate acknowledgment of prior research
-Scientific misconduct
-Fabrication-Making up research data
-Falsification- Manipulation of exciting data
-Improper use of humans and animals in research

25. Peer reviewing Process in
international journals
Technical Revision
Scientific Revision

26. First revision
Technical screening
-Technical Screening is a process to solve
‘technical’ problems such as poor English.
-Manuscripts that do not meet standard are
returned to the corresponding author, with a
check-list of missing or insufficient items.
-Authors can resubmit the paper after attending to
these technical insufficiencies.

27. Author response to technical check
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your useful comments on the language and structure
of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed
corrections are listed below point by point:
1) In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not
meet the journal's required standard. Authors have the responsibility to
present their papers in good English.
- We have revised the manuscript carefully and we have asked colleagues
who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We
believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process.
2) Please note that your abstract (250 words) has exceeded the maximum
length of 150 words for research articles in this journal.
-The abstract has been revised and its word count is now 149.
3) Figures should be cited in sequential order in the main text. In your
manuscript, Fig. 6 is provided but not cited. Please check and revise.
- Now all figures are provided and cited in sequence in the main text.

28. Author response to technical check (cont.)
4) A cover letter should include the following statement: the manuscript has not
been previously published, is not currently submitted for review to any other
journal, and will not be submitted elsewhere before a decision is made.
-The required information is now included in the cover letter.
5) The manuscript should be typewritten in uniform lettering and sizing, and
with double spacing throughout.
- We now have used uniform lettering and sizing throughout the manuscript,
with double spacing.
6) The reference style must conform strictly to the journal’s Guide for Authors
-We have checked all the references and formatted them according to the
Guide for Authors.
The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to
your positive response.
Sincerely,

29. Second revision
Scientific Revision
-Journals have different assessment
forms for reviewers
-Reviewers should consider different
points and write confidential
comments.

30. Invitation

31. How to review a manuscript?

32. General impression
-Look at the manuscript as a whole
-General comprehension of the manuscript
-Language/style/grammar
-Structure

33. An Example of Assessment Form
The following points should be considered
General
1. Objectives are clearly stated.
2. Work is novel has justifiable grounds for
repetition.
3. Title is informative but compact.
4. Title plus keywords are appropriate for
effective data retrieval.
5. Summary is an accurate synopsis of content.
6. Introduction is balanced but not exhaustive.
7. The paper is informative to the general reader
of the Journal.

34. An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)
Materials and methods
9. Experimental procedures are sound,
appropriate, and up to date.
10. Sufficient experimental detail are given for
independent repetition,
11. Details covered by references where possible.
12. Key details essential to understanding the
work are given.

35. Results
13. Are presented with clarity and economy
of space (efficient use of figures and tables)
with no unnecessary detail.
14. Data are appropriately analyzed.
Conclusions
15. Are fully supported by the evidence
presented.
16. Speculation is clearly identifiable.
17. Are helpful to the reader.
An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)

36. References
18. Appropriate (complete on key
references, but not exhaustive).
19. Correct and readily available.
Recommendation
Accept- Minor Revision- Major Revision-
Reject & Resubmit – Reject
Comments
Confidential Comments to the Editor-in-Chief
An Example of Assessment Form (cont.)

37. Reviewer Report
The article might be
-Accepted as it is.
-Accepted after minor revision
-Accepted after major revision
- Rejected and could be resubmitted
- Rejected

38. Dealing with reviewers̕ comments

39. Response to revision request
Reviewer comment Author response
Reviewer 1
Dear Editor in chief
It is my pleasure to send you the revised version of my/our article entitled
“Article title” to be considered for publication in your journal.
Thanks for the careful revision that been done to my/our article. The comments
and suggestion highlighted by reviewers have been considered in the revised
manuscript. The modifications, additions and corrections are appeared in red color
within article.
Hoping that the changes introduced improve the manuscript in satisfactory way, I remain
With my best regards
Sincerely yours,

40. Contact information
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Fawzy Ramadan
Hassanien
Scientific Research Deanship
Email: mhassanien@uqu.edu.sa
Webpage: www.mframadan.webs.com