Guide for Selecting Research Paper Reviewers

I. Introduction

The process of selecting research paper reviewers is a fundamental pillar for ensuring the quality of scientific research submitted to the conference. It enhances the conference's credibility and academic reputation at both local and international levels. This guide aims to establish clear and objective standards to assist the Scientific Committee in choosing a cohort of scientifically and ethically qualified reviewers, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the peer-review process.

II. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Subject Matter Expertise
- Thematic Relevance: The reviewer must be directly specialized in the research paper's field or one of its specific branches.
- Current Research Activity: Preference is given to reviewers with scientific production published within the last 3–5 years in reputable, peer-reviewed journals to ensure familiarity with the latest developments and methodologies.
- Scientific Impact Indicators: Global databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar, as well as the H-index on the Scopus platform, may be used to identify highly influential researchers in their fields.
Academic Qualifications and Experience
- Scientific Qualification: The reviewer must hold a PhD degree.
- Academic Rank: The reviewer should hold the rank of Assistant Professor or higher (or its equivalent).
Integrity and Conflict of Interest
- Independence: There must be no direct or indirect relationship between the reviewer and the researcher, such as:
  - Previous or current academic supervision.
  - Affiliation with the same department or institution.
  - Participation in recent joint research or projects.
- Objectivity: The reviewer must be able to provide an honest scientific evaluation based on academic foundations, free from personal or institutional considerations.
Reviewing Record
- Punctuality: Preference is given to reviewers known for submitting review reports within the specified timeframe.
- Report Quality: The reviewer should have a record of preparing detailed and constructive reports that contribute to improving research quality, rather than sufficing with general decisions like "Accept" or "Reject".
- Review Records: Platforms like Web of Science may be used to view the reviewer's previous history when available.
Institutional and Geographical Diversity
- Geographical Diversity: Efforts are made to involve reviewers from different countries to enhance the international character of the conference.
- Institutional Diversity: Reviewers are selected from various universities and research centers, avoiding over-reliance on a single institution.
Availability and Capacity
- Confirm the reviewer's willingness to participate in the peer-review process.
- Ensure their ability to complete review tasks within the timeframe specified by the conference.
- Verification is conducted through direct communication via email or other appropriate means.

III. Sources for Finding Reviewers

The Scientific Committee may use the following sources to nominate and select reviewers:

Conference databases containing records of previous reviewers.

Reviewers collaborating with the Sebha University Award for Scientific Excellence committee.

Scientific promotion committees.

Scientific journals published by the university.

Academic Research Platforms: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

Reviewing faculty CVs via official university websites.

Nominations from members of the Conference Scientific Committee or experts in relevant fields.

IV. General Provisions

Confidentiality

The Scientific Committee is committed to the confidentiality of the review process and reviewer data.

Periodic Review

Reviewer selection is subject to periodic review to ensure quality improvement and the development of review mechanisms.

Exclusion Right

The Scientific Committee reserves the right to exclude any reviewer proven to have violated integrity or professional standards.