Peer Review Process
Maintaining TMJ 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. Reviewing a manuscript is a privilege and a significant responsibility that we deeply appreciate.
Double-Blind Peer-Review
TMJ adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures high-quality publications. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other, preventing biases related to identity, reputation, or institutional affiliation. Turnaround Time: We request reviewers provide feedback within 2 weeks.
Suggesting Reviewers
Note to Authors: It is essential to suggest two potential reviewers during submission. These individuals should be knowledgeable in your specific field to ensure a comprehensive assessment and constructive feedback.
Reviewer Guidelines & Ethics
If invited by the Editor-in-Chief to review, you are expected to:
- Review critically but constructively.
- Declare any conflicts of interest.
- Treat the manuscript as strictly confidential.
- Report any suspected research misconduct.
- Suggest alternative reviewers if unavailable.
- Inform the editor if the work is published elsewhere.
- Do not communicate directly with authors.
- Write all review reports in English only.
Evaluation Checklist
Reviewers must evaluate the manuscript based on:
Peer reviewers are key to advancing scholarship. We thank all reviewers who contribute their time and expertise to the Thi-Qar Medical Journal.