Reviewer Guidelines

The Iraqi Journal for Applied Science (IJAS) relies on the expertise, professionalism, and integrity of its reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Peer review is an essential component of the editorial process and contributes to ensuring the originality, scientific quality, accuracy, and credibility of published research.

IJAS operates a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

The journal follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide independent, objective, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts to assist the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in making informed editorial decisions.

The primary objectives of peer review are to:

Assess the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Evaluate the originality and significance of the research.
Verify the validity of the methodology and conclusions.
Improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript through constructive feedback.
Help maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and professionally.
Accept review invitations only when they possess appropriate subject expertise.
Complete reviews within the requested timeframe or promptly notify the Editorial Office if unable to do so.
Provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments.
Evaluate the scientific merit of the manuscript without regard to the authors' nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal characteristics.
Recommend improvements that enhance the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Identify relevant literature that should be cited.
Report suspected ethical concerns or research misconduct.
Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript materials.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with any third party without editorial permission.
Discuss manuscript content outside the peer-review process.
Use unpublished information for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.
Retain copies of manuscripts after the review process has concluded.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations whenever actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest may affect their objectivity.

Examples include:

Current or recent collaboration with the authors.
Employment at the same institution.
Personal or family relationships.
Financial interests.
Competitive research activities.
Supervisory or student relationships.

Any potential conflict should be disclosed immediately to the Editorial Office.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts using the following criteria.

Originality and Novelty

Does the manuscript present new knowledge?
Does it provide a meaningful scientific contribution?

Scientific Quality

Is the research question clearly defined?
Is the methodology appropriate?
Are experimental procedures adequately described?
Are statistical analyses appropriate?

Results and Interpretation

Are the results presented clearly?
Are conclusions supported by the evidence?
Are interpretations scientifically justified?

Organization and Clarity

Is the manuscript well structured?
Is the English language clear and understandable?
Are figures and tables appropriate and informative?

References

Are references current and relevant?
Are important publications adequately cited?
Are citations accurate and complete?

Ethical Compliance

Are ethical approvals reported where required?
Are there indications of plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct?

Relevance

Is the manuscript within the aims and scope of IJAS?
Will it be of interest to the journal's readership?

6. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should promptly inform the Editor if they identify or suspect:

Plagiarism.
Duplicate publication.
Fabricated or falsified data.
Image manipulation.
Citation manipulation.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Ethical concerns involving human or animal research.
Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations but should report their concerns confidentially to the Editorial Office.

7. Review Report

Review reports should:

Be clear, objective, and constructive.
Focus on scientific content rather than personal criticism.
Distinguish between major and minor issues.
Provide specific recommendations supported by scientific reasoning.
Include comments for both the authors and the editor where appropriate.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

Accept.
Minor Revision.
Major Revision.
Reject.

Recommendations should be supported by detailed comments explaining the basis for the recommendation.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the timeframe specified in the review invitation.

If additional time is required, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Timely reviews contribute to efficient editorial processing and improve the author experience.

10. Recognition of Reviewers

IJAS sincerely appreciates the valuable contributions of its reviewers.

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining scientific quality, publication integrity, and editorial excellence.

The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through appropriate recognition mechanisms while preserving reviewer confidentiality in accordance with the journal's peer-review model.