The research and articles submitted to the journal go through the evaluation and criticism stage, in which the following takes place:

The submitted works are referred to an evaluator specialized in the subject to be criticized, provided that he writes his opinion explicitly in one of the following forms:

1. Approval for publication without comments.
2. Approval with comments that he sees fit to modify the research on the basis of.
3. Rejection of the research with explanatory notes.

The research is returned to its owner in the second and third forms to modify his research according to what he sees as sound from the evaluator's comments, and he has the right to reject the comments with another scientific response in which he refutes the opinion of that evaluator, explaining the areas of error in his criticism. In the event of a disagreement between the researcher and the evaluator and each insisting on his opinion, the research is referred to a referee of a higher scientific degree who is authorized to nominate the research for publication or not, provided that the editorial board has its opinion in evaluating the research according to the criteria it has set for accepting materials for publication.

The name of the writer is hidden from the evaluator and vice versa; Criticism should be objective in all cases, and we hope, however, that the reviewers will be honest and soft-spoken in their criticism of the works submitted to them. We also hope that the authors will consider the comments they find on their research as a way to enrich the research and evidence of its importance. The journal is not obligated to return the research to its author, whether it is published or not. Its editorial board reserves the right to publish it according to its plan and at the time it deems appropriate. It has the right to republish it separately or within a group of research in its original language or translated into any other language without the permission of the author of the research.