Guide for Reviewers

Peer review's main purpose is to give the editor the information they need to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that complies with the journal's editorial standards. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. Review reports ought to assist authors in making necessary revisions to their work so that it can be accepted for publication.  Reports that include a recommendation to reject the paper should outline the major research weaknesses, this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal. 

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

 

Before you review

Before you agree to review for a journal, it is your professional responsibility to consider the following:

• Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
• Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, make the editor aware immediately.
• Can you complete the review in the allotted time? If you may struggle to meet the deadline, please let the editor know, so they can inform the author.
• Are you aware of, and able to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers? Please read the Ethical Guidelines of Reviewers' Duties and Responsibilities , and COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

 

How to log in and access your review

To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the submission/reviewing system. If you experience difficulties accessing the paper, you might Contact the journal manager.

 

How to write a peer review report

1- Journal-specific instructions

Visit the journal homepage on https://kujss.uokirkuk.edu.iq/ and read the aims and scope and instructions for authors to get a sense of the journal’s scope and content. This will help you determine if the paper you’re reviewing is suitable for the journal or not.

 

2- Read the paper

While you read the paper remember to check over any tables, figures, or supplementary data. Bear in mind that the main factors you should provide advice on are:

• The originality, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.
• The accuracy and validity of the methodology, and whether the conclusions are appropriately supported.

 

3- Write your report

There are two purposes for your report: to provide the editor with information to enable them to make a decision, and to provide feedback to the author to help improve their work.

It is often helpful to begin with a brief summary of the work and the main findings as you understand them, along with a summary of your overall opinion.

Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to the author isn’t always easy. A good rule is to direct your criticism towards the work carried out and avoid comments that may be interpreted as personal criticism of the author.

Here are a few things to consider when writing your report:

• Your comments must be suitable to send to the author. Please make constructive suggestions, seek clarification on any unclear points, and ask for further elaboration. Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism.
• If the paper reports original research, comment on whether the methods are appropriate and whether the work was carried out to the standards expected within your field.
• Note any aspects that you are unable to assess, whether this is due to lack of clarity or because it is outside your expertise.
• You should make suggestions on how the author can improve clarity, conciseness, and the quality of the presentation.
• Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length. If you recommend shortening, mention specific areas where you think this is required.
• It’s not the reviewer’s job to edit the paper for spelling, grammar, etc., but it is helpful if you can note specific points where the technical meaning is unclear.
• You may disagree with the author’s opinions, but you should allow them to argue their case, provided their evidence supports it.
• Reviewers are not expected to detect research integrity concerns in manuscripts, but your expertise may allow you to spot potential issues that editorial staff or the editor have missed. If you suspect misconduct, please let the publisher or the editor know as soon as possible.

 

4- Manuscript Evaluation Form

    The reviewer needs to fill out a manuscript evaluation form which contains the following questions:

• Importance in its field
• The article's topic is suitable for the journal
• The article contains new additions
• Ethical Considerations
• The article's title is clear and reflects the article
• Methods and materials are adequately used
• Results are clearly presented and analyzed
• Tables and Figures are clear and correctly discussed
• The article contains findings and a clear conclusion
• The references used in the article adequate

 

5- Final Recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:

• Accept 
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Reject
• Unable to Review