Peer Review

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your dedication. Maintaining Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine  as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

double-blind peer-review process

The double-blind peer-review process in Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine  is a pivotal step for maintaining the quality and integrity of academic research, this approach ensures both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other, preventing biases related to author identity, reputation, or institutional affiliations. This impartial evaluation fosters objectivity, contributing to the credibility and reliability of published research. By mitigating potential biases, the double-blind peer-review process plays a crucial role in upholding the standards of scholarly work and enhancing the robustness of scientific knowledge.Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine  adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine  needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 2 weeks.

Before submitting your research paper to the Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine , it is essential to suggest two reviewers who can evaluate the manuscript. This practice serves to ensure a thorough and impartial review process. By proposing suitable reviewers with expertise in the relevant field, you increase the likelihood of receiving constructive feedback and insights that can enhance the quality of your paper. It is crucial to select individuals familiar with the subject matter to ensure a comprehensive assessment. This step not only aligns with the journal's standards but also contributes to the overall integrity of the scientific publication process. Remember that the reviewers you suggest should be knowledgeable in the specific areas your paper addresses, fostering a more insightful and effective peer review.

Reviewers Responsibilities

If Thi-Qar Journal of Medicine  Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

1. Reviewing manuscripts critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
2. Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
3. Providing all required information within established deadlines.
4. Making recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication in the journal.
5. Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.
6.  Reporting possible research misconduct.
7. Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reason.
8.  Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.
9. Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
10.  Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow, they identify the authors.
11. Not identifying themselves as authors.
12.  Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
13. Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.
14. Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
15. Writing review reports in English only.
16. Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

 

What Should be Checked while Reviewing a manuscript?

1. Novelty.
2. Originality.
3. Scientific reliability.
4. A valuable contribution to science.
5. Adding new aspects to the existing field of study.
6. Ethical aspects.
7.  Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines.
8. References are provided to substantiate the content.
9. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
10. Scientific misconduct.