Peer review is an indispensable system used to ensure high-quality publications. Reviewers are deeply appreciated by the editorial staff for taking the time and effort to review manuscripts submitted to the Iraqi J. Vet. Med. Scholars who serve as reviewers for this journal will receive a personalized reviewer certificate as a token of gratitude for their efforts.

Peer-Review

• All submitted manuscripts should be reviewed online through the journal’s website submission system.
• The 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.
• An appropriate section editor will be assigned at this point to evaluate the scientific ‎qualification and suggest potential reviewers. ‎
• If a paper is 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. On a point-by-point basis, the corresponding author(s) should respond to reviewer comments. The corresponding author(s) must express their disagreement with the reviewer's recommendations in a clear and concise manner.
• 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 accepting or declining an invitation: 

• The topic of the article must match the reviewer's 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 responding.
• 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 that 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.

Confidentiality

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.

Promptness

Providing authors with effective publishing services is one priority of the 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.

Manuscript Evaluation

• Originality 

  • Is the question presented original?
  • Do the outcomes provide an advance in current knowledge of the subject?

• 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 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 discovers scientific misconducts, such as fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, he or she must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Report

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 the Iraqi J. Vet. Med., but review reports can contain:

• Summary
•  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 need further considerations.
• Mention if you are available to look at a revised version.

Overall Recommendation

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 the Iraqi J.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.