Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IRELC's Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. IRELC adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, IRELC needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4 weeks. Maintaining IRELC as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.




If IRELC's Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

  1. Reviewing a manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript if necessary
  3. Providing all required information within established deadlines
  4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
  6. Reporting possible research misconducts
  7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for whatever reasons
  8. Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  10. Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
  11. Not identifying themselves to authors
  12. Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  15. Writing a review report in English only


  1. Novelty
  2. Originality
  3. Reliability and validity
  4. Valuable contribution to the science
  5. Adding new aspects to the existing field of study
  6. Ethical aspects
  7. Structure of the article and its relevance to Authors’ Guidelines
  8. Recency of the references provided to substantiate the content
  9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  10. Academic misconduct

IRELC's Reviewers

(Sorted alphabetically)


Reviewer Name

Reviewer Affiliation


Aliasin, Seyed Hesamuddin

University of Zanjan, Iran


Allami, Hamid

Tarbiat Modares University, Iran


Arjani, S. Hossein

Allameh Tabataba'i University, Iran


Arús Hita, Jorge

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain


Gholami, Javad

Urmia University, Iran


Gouveia, Carlos A. M.

University of Lisbon, Portugal


Hyland, Ken

University of East Anglia, UK


Jalilifar, Alireza

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran


Jodairi Pineh, Aiyoub

University of Zanjan, Iran


Kuhi, Davud

Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Iran


Mashhadi, Amir

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran


Mickan, Peter

University of Adelaide, Australia


Miller, Donna R.

University of Bologna, Italy


Mobini, Fariba

University of Zanjan, Iran


Mohammadi, Elham

University of Zanjan, Iran


Moradi-joz, Rasoul

University of Zanjan, Iran


Nasiri, Mehdi

University of Zanjan, Iran


Pishghadam, Reza

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran


Razmjoo, Seyyed Ayatollah

Shiraz University, Iran


Riazi, Mehdi

Macquarie University, Australia


Roohani, Ali

Shahrekord University, Iran


Shokouhi, Hossein

Deakin University, Australia


Shooshtari, Zohreh G.

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran


Silaški, Nadežda

University of Belgrade, Serbia


Tajeddin, S. Zia

University of Tarbiat Modares, Iran


White, Peter

University of New South Wales, Australia


Zand-Moghadam, Amir

Allameh Tabataba'i University, Iran