For Reviewers

Overview

Samarra Journal of Engineering Science and Research (SJESR) uses a double-blind peer review process (Anonymous Reviewer / Anonymous Author), where the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden. All steps of reviewing are fully electronic through the journal's submission system.

Each manuscript is generally evaluated by three independent expert reviewers. In all cases, the minimum number of reviewers is two.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following dimensions:

Relevance to Journal Scope

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

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?

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: Changes and corrections are needed.
  • 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).

Submitting Your Review

After completing the review, reviewers can:

  • Enter comments in the Comments for Authors and Editor field.
  • Enter confidential remarks in the Comments for Editor Only field (if needed).
  • Upload files with detailed comments and notes (optional).
  • Select the appropriate recommendation from the recommendations list.

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.
  • If you are unable to complete the review on time, please notify the editor immediately.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Do not share manuscripts or their contents with others without editorial permission.
  • Do not retain copies of manuscripts after completing the review.
  • Do not use information from manuscripts for personal advantage.
  • Destroy or securely delete manuscript files after review.

Objectivity and Fairness

  • Conduct reviews objectively, professionally, and constructively.
  • Evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit.
  • Provide specific, evidence-based feedback.
  • Distinguish between serious flaws and matters of personal preference.
  • Avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language.
  • Support criticisms with clear reasoning.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Decline to review manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist, including:
    • Recent collaboration with authors (within the past 3 years).
    • Current or recent institutional affiliation with authors.
    • Financial interest in research outcomes.
    • Personal relationships with authors.
    • Professional competition with authors.
    • Any other circumstances that could affect objectivity.

Reporting Misconduct

  • Alert editors to any suspected research misconduct, including:
    • Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
    • Data fabrication or falsification.
    • Unethical research practices.
    • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
    • Image manipulation.
    • Any other integrity concerns.

Reviewer Benefits

50% Discount on Publication Fees

Authors who serve as peer reviewers for SJESR receive a 50% discount on publication fees.

  • One discount earned per manuscript reviewed.
  • Discount applicable to future manuscript submissions.
  • Reviewers must complete the review process to qualify.

Effective Date: July 23, 2025

Become a Reviewer

SJESR welcomes qualified researchers who wish to contribute to the peer review process. To volunteer as a reviewer, email your CV and areas of expertise to: sjesr@uosamarra.edu.iq

Ethical Guidelines

  • Adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • Follow journal-specific reviewer guidelines.
  • Maintain professionalism in all communications.
  • See the Publication Ethics page for complete details.

Last Updated: February 26, 2026