Guide for Reviewers
Guide for Reviewers
Peer-review is an indispensable system used to ensure high-quality publications. The editorial team honestly appreciates reviewers for taking the time and effort to review manuscripts submitted to The Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Medicine. As a part of the appreciation of such efforts, scholars serve as a reviewer for The Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Medicine will be recognized by providing a personalized reviewer certificate.
- All submitted manuscripts should be reviewed online through the journal’s website submission system.
- Iraqi J.Vet.Med applies a double-blind review, where the identities of the reviewers and authors keep anonymously throughout the peer-review process.
- Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Manager will initially screen a submitted paper to determine if it follows the instructions of guide to authors in terms of formatting preparation, ethical policies of the journal, and journal's scope.
- If a paper deemed appropriate, Editor-in-Chief will assign it to at least two independent experts for review.
- Manuscripts that need revision will be sent back to the corresponding author(s) along with the reviewer's comments.
- The corresponding author(s) must return the revised manuscript to the editorial office within 2 weeks. Corresponding authors should respond to reviewer comments in a point-by-point style. Disagreement with reviewer suggestions by the corresponding authors should be responded clearly.
- Editor-in-Chief will then send the revised manuscript to the Editorial Manager to check whether the manuscript is revised according to the reviewers’ suggestions.
- The Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision, after considering all reviewer comments.
Invitation to Review
A reviewer will be requested to assess the quality of a submitted manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief if a manuscript is accepted as is, needs minor or major revisions, or should be rejected.
An invited reviewer will be asked to take into account the following considerations before accept or decline an invitation:
- The topic of the article must match the reviewer area of expertise. A reviewer will make a quick decision to accept or decline an invitation based on the title and abstract of a submitted manuscript. Please accept only if you feel that you can provide a reliable review. If a reviewer declined an invitation, he/she will be asked friendly to suggest an alternative reviewer(s).
- If there is a potential conflict of interest, a reviewer must disclose this to the Editor-in-Chief when respond.
- Meet the deadline set by the journal. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are assured that they will provide the review report within a due date set by the journal.
Conflicts of Interest
An invited reviewer will be asked to notify the Editor-in-Chief if he/she has a conflict of interest which might bias the assessment report ((either positive or negative). which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let us know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.
Reviewers should keep the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript (including the title and abstract) and must not use the ideas, material, and any information obtained through peer review for their advantage. The reviewers must not show or discuss the manuscript and review contents with others (such as a student or colleague) only if authorized by Editor-in-Chief. If authorized, the names of individuals who have assisted them with the review process must be involved with the returned review report so that they will be recognized for their efforts by the journal.
Providing authors with effective publishing services is one priority of Iraqi J Vet. Med. A reviewer will be asked to provide a timely high-quality report on a submitted manuscript and will be informed that there is a “Request for Extension” in case more time is required.
Evaluation of the Manuscript
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the following standardized aspects of the manuscript
- Is the question presented original?
- Do the outcomes provide an advance in current knowledge of the subject?
- Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant for the field?
- Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
- Are hypotheses and assumptions carefully identified?
- Quality of Presentation
- Is the manuscript written in a proper structure?
- Are the data and analyses presented appropriately?
- Are the highest standards for the presentation of the results used?
- Are the figures, tables, and graphs clear, and do they correctly represent the results?
- Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
- Scientific Reliability
- Is the experiment properly designed for answering the research question?
- Does the study have appropriate controls?
- Is the sample size sufficient?
- Is the statistical analysis used appropriately and correctly reported?
- Are the analyses conducted with the modern technical standards?
- Are the data robust sufficiently to draw the conclusions?
- Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made?
- Are the methods, apparatuses, software, and materials sufficiently described to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
- Is the study carried out following generally accepted ethical research standards
- Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
Note: If a reviewer discovered scientific misconduct such as fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, he/she must inform these issues the Editor-in-Chief directly.
Reviewers of the journal assist editors and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and they serve to help the author(s) in improving the submitted manuscript. Thus, we encourage reviewers to make sure that their critiques are constructive, particularly if a revision is suggested. There is no specific format of review reports required by Iraqi J Vet. Med., but review reports can contain:
- A short paragraph summarizes the aim(s) of the manuscript and its significance, suitability of the article for the journal, areas of strength and weakness, and overall recommendation.
- Major and minor issues
- Highlight major issues that must be addressed for the manuscript to proceed.
- Mention additional minor issues that the author(s) should do to improve the manuscript quality. These minor issues will be comments that would not influence the overall conclusion.
- Both major and minor comments should be specific enough (referring to line numbers, tables, or figures) for authors to be able to respond.
- Other specific comments
- Add confidential comments for the Editor-in-Chief regarding concerns, such as ethics, that they need further considerations.
- Mention if you are available to look at a revised version.
Reviewers will be asked to provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:
- Accept As Is: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes.
- Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Major Revision: The decision of acceptance would depend on the revisions.
- Reject: The submitted manuscript has many weaknesses.
Note: Your recommendation will be accessible only to the editors, not to the authors.
Invitation to Join Iraqi J Vet Med Reviewer Database
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for Iraqi J of Vet Med, please register your contact details, including your ORCID identifier, institutional affiliation, a short CV, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise at the http://jcovm.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/Iraqijvm/user/register. Editor-in-Chief will send a notification to you upon approval.