​​I. General Reviewer Guidelines 
  • ​At least one Principal investigator (PI).
  • The Principal Investigator(s)(PI) must be Staff members from HMC or most of the PIs of the research must be from HMC.
  • The Principal Investigators’ must possess valid HMC IDs and Corporation numbers.
  • Knowledge and Expertise in the field of that research with documentation of his/ her subject expertise.
  • Consent of Head and Chairman of the department of the Principal Investigator.
  • List of all researches done in HMC by the PI.
  • Completed research proposal form on the latest template of the RC research proposal submission format.
  • Signatures of all investigators on the research proposal application form.
  • Assurance that a similar research is not going on in the Corporation at the current time.
  • Statement of intellectual property sharing and authorship between all researchers.
  • Research consent forms in English, Arabic and local languages of the participants.
  • Investigators’ assurance form duly signed by all the investigators’.
  • Principal Investigators’ updated CV.
II. Reviewer’s guidelines based on their subject expertise 

1) Feasibility of the research proposal: The reviewer assesses the practical aspects of the research proposal, based on the expertise, qualifications and the level of competence of the researchers to conduct the research in HMC. In addition, the reviewer checks whether the logistics of the research in terms of the budget, the available resources, resources to be acquired, the time line of the research , the cultural and religious feasibility of the research and so on and studies the costs of the proposal. 

2) Interest: The reviewer then studies, the importance of the research in terms of benefit or value to the subject ( the discipline )of the research, the medical fraternity , the beneficiaries( patients or public) and to the community – local and international. 

3) Novelty: The reviewer appraises the research in terms of the originality of the research idea, the research hypothesis, the newness of the topic to the research community, to the local community and the community at large. The research should add something new to the existing database of knowledge on the topic. 

4) Ethical aspects: The reviewer evaluates the proposal on its ethical aspects too. The costs of the research are weighed against the benefits of the research. The costs can be in terms of material , social, psychological or physical costs and the benefits would be advantages to the participant in the research and gains to the community both local and general. The research is evaluated in terms of its benefits, its respect for the dignity of the human and other participants and justice to the participants in the research and the community to which the participants belong. 

5) Relevance: The reviewer examines the research in terms of the importance of the study to the participants, the community the participants come from and the society at large.