Guide for Referee

We sincerely thank you for reviewing articles for "Mind, Movement, and Behavior" journal. This journal has been publishing bilingually (English-Persian) since 2022 and aims to be indexed in reputable national and international scientific databases. Achieving this goal undoubtedly depends on the dedicated cooperation of esteemed reviewers like you.

Specialized review is a process through which the submitted articles to the bi-monthly journal "Mind, Movement, and Behavior" are evaluated by experts in the relevant fields. In this process, reviewers provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, including specific examples from the text, which is sent to both the author and the editor. This feedback aids the editor in making more informed decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article for publication. The reviewers' comments are extremely valuable for the authors, as identifying the strengths and weaknesses allows them to enhance their work towards achieving publication. Reviewers pinpoint the weaknesses in the article that may hinder its publication. Although specialized reviewing may have its shortcomings, it remains the best and most standardized method for assessing the quality of articles and journals.

We have confidence in you esteemed reviewers and know that your evaluations will be timely, fair, thorough, precise, and respectful of the authors' rights while upholding our commitments to the authors. The editorial board and all those involved in the journal sincerely thank you for your dedicated efforts and the valuable time you invest in the review process. We hope that the following points will be useful in facilitating timely and effective reviews of the submissions to this journal.

Ethical Issues

Timely Review: Please plan accordingly so that the review of the article and the completion of the relevant form are finished within 14 days. If you need more time or cannot review the article, please inform the journal office immediately, so that another reviewer can be invited if necessary.

Confidentiality: Every article submitted for review is a confidential document and remains so until published. Please do not show the article to anyone and do not express your opinion about it to anyone. If you believe that other colleagues are preferable for the review, please do not personally communicate this to that colleague, and allow this to be done through the journal office with the permission of that colleague. As the identity of the reviewer is also entirely confidential to the authors, please ensure that your remarks included in the manuscript file are anonymous. Do not request the journal office to disclose the identity of the author to you. This journal values and respects all reviewers who are part of the scientific community of the country and refrains from disclosing the identities of the authors until the article is published.

Fairness and Impartiality: If there are weaknesses in the article, focus on critiquing the weaknesses of the article rather than the author. Unpleasant language in the review raises suspicions about your impartiality; as a result, even if your criticisms are just and constructive, acceptance by the author may become difficult. Explanations related to the author should convince them that:

1. You studied the entire article carefully.
2. Your critique is entirely fair and impartial.
3. You are an expert in the scientific field of the article and qualified to review it. If you are unable to gain the trust of the author and evoke a sense of gratitude for your review, your efforts might go to waste.

Plagiarism or Academic Misconduct: If you suspect that the article involves plagiarism or academic misconduct, please report it to the editor-in-chief with the necessary details and sources.

Deception: Identifying deception in the article is quite difficult; however, if you suspect that the findings and data of the article are not real or accurate, share your concerns with the editor-in-chief.

Conflict of Interest: If you feel that you cannot conduct an impartial review, return the article as soon as possible without reviewing it and inform the editor-in-chief or the journal office of the reason for not reviewing. If you recognize the author’s identity or the organization related to the article and know that this will influence your review and will not be impartial, please return the article without reviewing it and provide a reason for this, while maintaining confidentiality.

Writing the Review Report

While reviewing, please express your specialized opinion considering the following points.

Evaluation of the presentation of the article

Title:Is the title of the article appropriate? Is it concise enough, clear, and indicative of the main content of the article?

Abstract: Is the abstract coherent and a true reflection of the article? Are the essential and important information and findings of the article included in the abstract?

References: Are appropriate, sufficient, and up-to-date sources used in the article? An article should have about thirty sources or more. Are all sources mentioned in the text also included in the references section?

Structure and number of pages: Is the overall structure of the article written coherently and cohesively? Is the minimum and maximum required number of pages for the article adhered to?

Logic: Is the article written clearly and correctly? Does the article have logical strength?

Figures, diagrams, and tables: Are the figures, diagrams, and tables presented clearly and correctly?

English translation of the abstract: Are the vocabulary and grammar used in the English abstract sufficiently good and correct, conveying the scientific content of the article accurately to English-speaking readers?

    Evaluation of article quality

Innovation and originality: Is the article new and original and does it provide an addition to the existing knowledge?

Significance and impact: Are the results presented significant and impactful, and do they contribute to the advancement of the field studied in the article? Is it likely that this article will be referred to by other authors and researchers in the future?

Research background: Is the theoretical framework of the article stated appropriately? Is the central concept of the article clearly explained? Is the logic behind the hypothesis convincing? Is the research literature adequately reflected in the article or have some important sources been omitted?

Method: Are the samples and variables of the hypothesis correctly employed? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical techniques used? Does the article possess internal and external validity? Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions? And have they been used correctly?

Errors: Is there an error in the technique, truth, calculation, or interpretation of the information?

Overlap: Do the findings and data of this article overlap with other published or forthcoming articles? If so, please specify the details.

    Summary and final scoring

In addition to the explanations and comments, assign a score between 0 and 100 for the article according to the specified quantitative items in the review form. Articles that score above 70 will be considered for publication.

After reviewing and completing the scoring form, please indicate one of the following key points for the editor.

• Acceptance: If the article is suitable for publication in its current quality.
• Acceptance with minor revisions: If the article can be accepted with some minor adjustments. Please specify the necessary changes for the author in the relevant section.
• Acceptance with major revisions: If the article requires substantial changes such as expanding the data analysis, improving the research background, or rewriting parts of the article.
• Rejection: If the article is unsuitable for publication in this journal and requires fundamental and substantial revisions, rendering it unacceptable for submission to the journal.

4 - Some other points in writing the review report

A. Adding explanatory notes on the original article

If you intend to comment on the article as part of the review, please put your comments in review mode after adding them, and then upload it, ensuring that your name does not appear in the comments.

B. Explanations for authors

• Mention the central idea of the article and its strengths and weaknesses for publication.
• Your suggestions and comments should be constructive and useful so that they can improve the scientific quality and presentation of their article.
• Accompany your explanations, whether positive or negative, with specific examples, evidence, and references to the text. Remember that a review without explanations and points of strengths and weaknesses is much less impactful compared to a rich and detailed review since a detailed review with necessary specifics will be documented and defensible.
• If you reject the article, please note your reasons. These reasons will be sent to the author.
• To shorten the time from receipt of the article to publication, reviewers should strive to minimize the number of back-and-forth exchanges between the author and the reviewer. It is advisable to mention all important points in your first review report.

C.Editor’s Notes

• If you accept the article for publication, please briefly summarize the importance and innovation of the article and its merits for publication to the editor.
• If the article is rejected, write a brief explanation of the reasons for the rejection.
• Those explanations that are confidential or do not need to be communicated to the author will be sent to the editor. Any instances of academic misconduct, conflicts of interest, etc., should also be reported in this section to the editor.

D. Revised Articles

When the author revises their article in response to the reviewers, they are asked to prepare a list of changes made and other explanations to be sent to the reviewers. This revised version of the article will be returned to the reviewer, if possible, so that they can provide their opinion regarding approval or disapproval upon reviewing the changes made. In this section, also assign a score ranging from 0 to 100 to the article.