Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Iraqi Journal for Applied Science (IJAS)

The Iraqi Journal for Applied Science (IJAS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and confidential peer-review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an independent double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process to ensure objective scientific evaluation and editorial integrity.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on the scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance of the submitted work, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Office.

This assessment determines whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
  • Complies with the journal's formatting requirements.
  • Meets ethical and publication standards.
  • Contains all required submission documents.
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality for external review.

The Editorial Office may also conduct similarity screening using plagiarism-detection software.

Manuscripts that fail to satisfy the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

IJAS employs a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review model.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

This approach minimizes bias and promotes objective, impartial, and independent evaluation.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant research field.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise.
  • Research experience.
  • Publication record.
  • Previous reviewing performance.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

The Editorial Board may appoint additional reviewers whenever further specialist evaluation is required.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Identify scientific strengths and weaknesses.
  • Recommend improvements where appropriate.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated data, or other forms of research misconduct.
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
  • Decline review invitations when conflicts of interest exist.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to internationally accepted scholarly standards, including:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Scientific significance.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Methodological rigor.
  • Quality of data and statistical analysis.
  • Interpretation of results.
  • Validity of conclusions.
  • Clarity of writing and organization.
  • Adequacy and currency of references.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Overall contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive recommendations that assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

6. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewers' reports, the handling editor and Editor-in-Chief may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions.
  • Major Revisions Required.
  • Reject with Resubmission Encouraged.
  • Reject.

The final editorial decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

7. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should submit:

  • A revised manuscript.
  • A detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation whenever necessary.

Failure to submit revisions within the requested timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the editorial process.

8. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and associated documents are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers shall not:

  • Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.
  • Reveal reviewer identities unless explicitly authorized by the journal.

Confidentiality is maintained before, during, and after publication.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity.

Individuals with conflicts of interest shall not participate in the editorial evaluation of the manuscript.

Examples include:

  • Financial relationships.
  • Institutional affiliations.
  • Collaborative relationships.
  • Personal relationships.
  • Competitive interests.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal in accordance with the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Appeals are evaluated independently by members of the Editorial Board who were not directly involved in the original decision whenever possible.

The outcome of the appeal is final.

11. Research Integrity

The journal is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

Suspected cases of:

  • plagiarism,
  • duplicate publication,
  • fabricated or falsified data,
  • image manipulation,
  • citation manipulation,
  • authorship disputes,
  • peer-review manipulation,
  • undeclared conflicts of interest,

will be investigated according to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, correction, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions where appropriate.

12. Review Timeline

The Editorial Office aims to manage the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining high standards of review quality.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on:

  • reviewer availability,
  • manuscript complexity,
  • revision requirements,
  • and the number of review rounds.

Authors are informed of editorial decisions as soon as reasonably possible.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of:

  • Article Processing Charges (APCs).
  • Institutional affiliations.
  • Funding sources.
  • Commercial interests.
  • Personal relationships.

Acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is based solely on its scientific merit.

14. Compliance with International Standards

The IJAS peer-review process follows internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing and research ethics, including the recommendations of:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

These principles guide the journal in ensuring fairness, transparency, confidentiality, accountability, and academic integrity throughout the editorial and peer-review process.