PEER REVIEW POLICY

The Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) is dedicated to publishing high-quality research in the fields of pure and applied sciences. To ensure the integrity, quality, and relevance of all published research, the Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) adheres to a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. This process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors, enhance the quality of submissions, and maintain the highest standards of scientific excellence.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) follows a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach fosters objectivity and impartiality, ensuring that the evaluation of manuscripts is based solely on the quality and significance of the research, without any bias related to the identity, institution, or country of the authors.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope and submission guidelines, and is checked for similarity and AI-writing indicators.
  2. Assignment of Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field, ensuring that the manuscript is evaluated by individuals with the necessary scientific knowledge. The editor may invite an additional reviewer when the reviewers’ reports disagree.
  3. Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the following key criteria:
    • Novelty and originality of the research
    • Scientific soundness and methodology
    • Relevance to the journal's scope
    • Clarity and quality of writing
    • Appropriateness of references and proper citation practices
    • Ethical compliance, especially for studies involving human or animal subjects
    • Interest and relevance for the journal’s readers
  4. Confidentiality: The peer review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and must not discuss or share its contents with anyone outside the review process. All communications regarding the manuscript should be directed to the editorial office.
  5. Reviewer Recommendations: Based on their evaluation, reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes.
    • Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted, provided the authors make minor corrections as per the reviewers' suggestions.
    • Major revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication.
    Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to authors, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and offering suggestions for improvement.
  6. Final Decision: The final decision on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board where needed, based on the reviewers’ recommendations. When the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, another editor makes the decision. In cases where substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may be sent for a second round of review. The decision is communicated to the authors through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the subject of the manuscript, as shown by their publication record, preferably in journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.
  • Reviewers must not have collaborated with any of the authors in the past three years, must not work in the same department as any author, and must declare any other conflict of interest before accepting a review.

Conflicts of Interest of Editors

  • Editors do not handle manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional or financial conflict of interest.

Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief or by editorial board members are handled by another editor, who selects the reviewers and manages the decision. The authoring member has no access to the review records or to the decision process. These manuscripts follow the same review standards as all other submissions.

Timely Submission of Review Reports

To ensure the efficiency of the review process, reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within 30 days. If additional time is required, the reviewer should notify the editorial team in advance. Timely reviews are essential for maintaining the journal’s publication schedule.

Use of AI Tools in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools, as this would breach confidentiality. Reviewers must not use AI to evaluate manuscripts or to write review reports. Language correction of the reviewer's own report is permitted only if it is declared to the editor. Editors likewise must not upload manuscripts to generative AI tools or use AI to evaluate manuscripts or draft decision letters. See the journal's Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences). Their responsibilities include:

  • Providing objective, constructive, and timely feedback to improve the manuscript.
  • Ensuring the confidentiality of the review process and the contents of the manuscript.
  • Not using AI tools to evaluate the manuscript or write the review report, in accordance with the journal's AI Policy.
  • Disclosing any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review.
  • Identifying any ethical issues, such as plagiarism, falsification of data, or unethical research practices, and reporting them to the editorial board.

Ethical Considerations

The Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards. Reviewers must ensure that:

  • The manuscript is original and unpublished.
  • The research complies with all ethical guidelines, particularly for studies involving human or animal subjects.
  • Proper citations are provided for all referenced work, and there is no excessive self-citation or citation manipulation.

Appeals and Queries

If authors disagree with the reviewers’ comments or a rejection decision, they may submit an appeal to the editorial office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must include a detailed explanation addressing all concerns raised by the reviewers. The appeal is reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, and the manuscript may be sent for re-evaluation if necessary. The decision following the appeal review is final. If the appeal concerns a decision in which the Editor-in-Chief was personally involved, or a manuscript authored by the Editor-in-Chief, it is handled by another editor.

For any questions regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office at bjrs@uobasrah.edu.iq.

The peer review process at the Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) ensures that published research is of the highest quality, scientifically sound, and relevant to the field. By adhering to a strict double-blind review system and promoting ethical research practices, the Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) remains committed to advancing knowledge and maintaining academic excellence.