Peer Review Process

Samarra Journal of Engineering Science and Research (SJESR) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process (Anonymous Reviewer / Anonymous Author) to ensure the quality, validity, and integrity of all published research.

Double-Blind Peer Review Means:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• This approach minimizes bias based on author reputation, institution, nationality, gender, or other factors.
• Ensures objective evaluation based solely on scientific merit.

---

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript submitted to SJESR is generally evaluated by three independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. In all cases, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be consulted if:

• Initial reviewers provide conflicting recommendations.
• Specialized expertise is needed for specific aspects.
• Original reviewers are unavailable for re-review of revisions.

---

Peer Review Process Overview

STEP 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor conducts an initial assessment to determine if the manuscript is suitable for peer review.

Screening Criteria:

• Falls within the journal's scope and aims.
• Meets basic formatting and structural requirements.
• Written in clear, professional English.
• Contains sufficient scientific content.
• Follows submission guidelines.
• Includes all required documents (Declaration form, etc.).

Possible Decisions:

• Proceed to Review: Manuscript meets basic criteria and advances to plagiarism screening.
• Desk Reject: Manuscript does not meet minimum standards and is rejected without peer review.

Common Reasons for Desk Rejection:

• Out of scope for the journal.
• Poor language quality preventing evaluation.
• Insufficient scientific rigor or novelty.
• Major formatting or structural deficiencies.
• Incomplete submission (missing files or forms).
• Previously published or duplicate submission.

---

STEP 2: Plagiarism and AI Detection

All manuscripts passing initial screening undergo automated checks for plagiarism and artificial intelligence (AI). The similarity should not exceed 20% provided no unique source exceeds 5%, while the maximum allowable percentage of AI-generated content should not exceed 25%.

Plagiarism Detection:

• Screening using plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate, Turnitin).
• Comparison against published literature, web content, and previous submissions.
• Detection of text similarity, paraphrasing, and improper citation.

Artificial Intelligence Content Detection:

• Screening for AI-generated text (ChatGPT, etc.).
• Detection of machine-written content.
• Verification of human authorship.

---

STEP 3: Peer Review

When the manuscript passes the first two steps, it is generally evaluated by three independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. In all cases, the minimum number of reviewers is two.

Reviewer Selection:

• The handling editor identifies qualified reviewers based on:
  • Expertise in the manuscript's specific research area.
  • Recent publications in the relevant field.
  • Geographic and institutional diversity.
  • No conflicts of interest with authors.
• Reviewers are invited through the submission system.
• If a reviewer declines, an alternative reviewer is invited.

Review Criteria:

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following dimensions:

Originality and Significance:

• Does the work present new findings or insights?
• Is there sufficient novelty to warrant publication?
• What is the potential impact on the field?
• Does it advance knowledge beyond the current state?

Scientific Rigor and Methodology:

• Are methods appropriate for the research questions?
• Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
• Are methods sound and properly executed?
• Is the experimental design adequate?
• Are sample sizes sufficient?
• Are controls appropriate?

Data Analysis and Results:

• Are results clearly presented?
• Is statistical analysis appropriate and rigorous?
• Are figures and tables clear and necessary?
• Are data sufficient to support conclusions?
• Are uncertainties and limitations acknowledged?

Interpretation and Discussion:

• Are results properly interpreted?
• Are conclusions supported by the data?
• Is the work placed in the context of existing literature?
• Are limitations discussed?
• Are claims appropriate (not overstated)?

Clarity and Organization:

• Is the manuscript well-organized and easy to follow?
• Is the writing clear and concise?
• Are figures and tables effective?
• Is technical terminology properly used?

Relevance to Journal Scope:

• Does the work fit within SJESR's aims and scope?
• Is it suitable for the journal's audience?

Ethical Considerations:

• Are ethical approvals stated (if required)?
• Are conflicts of interest declared?
• Is there evidence of plagiarism or data issues?
• Are authorship criteria met?

Review Recommendations:

Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following:

• Accept Submission: Manuscript suitable for publication with minor editorial changes only.
• Revisions Required: Minor changes needed; generally accepted after revisions.
• Resubmit for Review: Significant revisions are needed, requiring another round of review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript is rejected in this journal and could be submitted to another journal.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal (rejected).
• See Comments: The decision is explained within detailed review comments in the case of a non-straightforward recommendation (rare).

Reviewer Feedback:

• Reviewers provide detailed comments for authors.
• Specific, constructive feedback on strengths and weaknesses.
• Suggestions for improvement.
• Identification of concerns or issues.
• Confidential comments to the editor (if needed).

Review Timeline:

• Reviewers are typically given 4 weeks to complete reviews.
• Reminders are sent if reviews are overdue.
• A replacement reviewer is sought if needed.

---

STEP 4: Editorial Decision

Once all reviewer reports are received, the handling editor evaluates:

• All reviewer recommendations and comments.
• Consistency or divergence among reviewers.
• Scientific merit and contribution of the work.
• Journal standards and priorities.

Editorial Decisions:

ACCEPT:

• Manuscript suitable for publication.
• Only minor editorial or formatting changes needed.
• Advances directly to production.
• Rare for first submission.

REVISIONS REQUIRED:

• Manuscript requires minor revisions.
• Issues can be addressed without fundamental changes to the work.
• Revised manuscript reviewed by the handling editor (not sent back to reviewers).
• Authors typically given 4 weeks to revise and resubmit.
• High likelihood of acceptance if revisions are properly addressed.

RESUBMIT FOR REVIEW:

• Manuscript requires major revisions.
• Significant concerns about methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.
• May require additional experiments, analyses, or data.
• Revised manuscript undergoes a second round of peer review.
• Authors typically given 6 weeks to revise and resubmit.
• No guarantee of acceptance after revision.

RESUBMIT ELSEWHERE:

• The manuscript is rejected in this journal and could be submitted to another journal.

DECLINE SUBMISSION:

• Manuscript does not meet SJESR's standards for publication.
• Fundamental flaws in methodology, analysis, or interpretation.
• Insufficient novelty or significance.
• Out of scope or better suited for another journal.
• Ethical concerns that cannot be resolved.
• Decision is final (no resubmission of rejected manuscripts).

SEE COMMENTS:

• The decision is explained within detailed review comments in the case of a non-straightforward recommendation.

Decision Letter:

Authors receive a detailed decision letter including:

• Editorial decision (Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline, or See Comments).
• Summary of key issues and reviewer consensus.
• All reviewer comments (anonymized).
• Specific requirements for revision (if applicable).
• Deadline for resubmission (if applicable).
• Instructions for preparing and submitting the revision.

---

STEP 5: Revision and Re-Review (if needed)

Author Responsibilities:

• Address ALL reviewer comments and concerns.
• Make requested changes to the manuscript.
• Prepare a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.
• Clearly indicate all changes in the revised manuscript (track changes or highlighting).
• Resubmit within the specified timeframe (4 or 6 weeks).

For Minor Revisions:

• Revised manuscript reviewed by the handling editor.
• Editor verifies that concerns have been addressed.
• Typically accepted if revisions are satisfactory.
• Rarely sent back to reviewers unless new concerns arise.

For Major Revisions:

• Revised manuscript sent back to original reviewers (when possible).
• Reviewers assess whether concerns have been adequately addressed.
• Reviewers may recommend: accept, further revisions, or reject.
• Editor makes the final decision based on re-review.
• A second or third revision may be requested if needed.

Extension Requests:

• Authors needing more time should contact the editorial office before the deadline.
• Extensions may be granted for reasonable cause (typically 2–4 additional weeks).
• Manuscripts not revised within the deadline may be rejected.

---

STEP 6: Final Decision

After Satisfactory Revision:

• Manuscript accepted for publication.
• Authors notified of acceptance.
• Manuscript sent to production for copyediting, formatting, and publication.

If Revisions Are Inadequate:

• Further revision requested (with specific guidance).
• Manuscript rejected if concerns cannot be resolved.
• Authors notified with a detailed explanation.

---

Tracking Your Manuscript

Online Dashboard

• Login to your account at: https://journals.uosamarra.edu.iq/sjesr/
• Navigate to "Submissions" → "Active Submissions."
• View current status and any messages from editors.

Manuscript Status Stages

• Submitted: Successfully submitted, awaiting initial screening.
• Editor Assigned: Under initial editorial review.
• Under Review: Sent to peer reviewers.
• Reviews Complete: All reviews received, editor making decision.
• Revision Required: Decision sent, awaiting author revision.
• Revised: Revision submitted, under re-review or editor review.
• Accepted: Manuscript accepted, proceeding to production.
• In Production: Copyediting and formatting.
• Published: Article published online.

Email Notifications

• Automatic notifications sent for all status changes.
• Check email regularly (including spam/junk folders).
• Ensure the email address in your profile is current.

Direct Inquiries: For questions about your submission status, email: sjesr@uosamarra.edu.iq

---

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

Manuscript Confidentiality

• All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
• Reviewers and editors must not share or discuss manuscripts.
• Manuscripts are not used for reviewers' personal advantage.
• Confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process.

Ethical Standards

• SJESR adheres to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
• All parties (authors, reviewers, editors) are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards.
• Any suspected misconduct is investigated promptly and fairly.
• See the Publication Ethics page for complete details.

Reviewer Conduct

• Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest.
• Reviews must be objective, constructive, and respectful.
• Reviewers must complete reviews in a timely manner.
• Reviewers must maintain confidentiality.

Editor Responsibilities

• Editors make decisions based solely on scientific merit.
• Editors must recuse themselves if conflicts exist.
• Editors handle complaints transparently and fairly.
• Editors protect the integrity of the peer review process.

Last Updated: February 26, 2026