Evaluator's Guide

Scientific Evaluator's Guide to Research in Durar Journal of Islamic Studies

Introduction: Durar Journal for Islamic Studies is pleased to thank the evaluators for their scientific efforts in evaluating the submitted research. This guide aims to define the criteria and controls for evaluating research, while ensuring the integrity and high quality of published research.

First: Research evaluation criteria

  1. Originality of the research:
  • Is the topic new, innovative and adds real scientific value to Islamic studies?
  • Is the research previously published?
  • Does the research avoid repetition and regurgitation of topics that have been sufficiently studied?
  1. Research commitment to scientific methodology:
  • Does the researcher follow a clear scientific method that is appropriate to the nature of the research?
  • Are the goals clear and well defined?
  • Are the research questions or hypotheses formulated in a scientifically accurate manner?
  1. Quality of sources and references:
  • Did the researcher rely on reliable and diverse scientific sources?
  • Are the texts and references documented accurately and in accordance with scientific principles?
  • Is there a balance between traditional and contemporary sources that suits the nature of the research?
  1. Analysis and discussion:
  • Is there a deep, evidence-based analysis of the texts and ideas presented?
  • Is the discussion logical and consistent with the research findings?
  • Does the researcher adhere to objectivity, free from bias or preconceived conclusions?
  1. Commitment to Sharia controls:
  • Does the research conform to Islamic principles and values?
  • Does the researcher discuss issues related to Islamic studies in a scientific manner, free from extremism or bias?
  1. Research language and style:
  • Is the research language clear, correct, and free of grammatical and spelling errors?
  • Is the presentation style organized and coherent, with appropriate division of chapters and headings?
  1. Importance of results:
  • Are the researcher's findings of scientific value?
  • Do the results meet the research objectives and answer its research questions?

Second: Evaluation steps

  1. Preliminary reading: Quick reading to determine how relevant the research is to the journal's field.
  2. Detailed examination: A comprehensive review of the points mentioned in the evaluation criteria.
  3. Preparing the evaluation report: Submitting a clear scientific report that includes:
  • Strengths.
  • Weaknesses.
  • Recommendations (accept the research, accept with minor modifications, accept with major modifications, reject the research)

Third: General guidelines for evaluators

  1. Commitment to complete confidentiality and non-disclosure of any details related to the research.
  2. Be objective and neutral and not be influenced by personal or institutional trends.
  3. Commitment to the specified time for submitting the evaluation.
  4. Use professional and constructive language when providing feedback and recommendations.

Fourth: Research Evaluation Form (for reviewers)

  • Research title:
  • Search number:

Final recommendation:

  • Accept the research.
  • Accept the research with minor modifications.
  • Accept the research with major modifications.
  • Reject the search.