Peer Review
PEER REVIEW
Introduction
The Science Journal of University of Zakho (SJUOZ) is committed to upholding rigorous academic standards. To ensure the quality and significance of published research, every article undergoes a thorough peer review process, typically involving at least two independent experts in the field. This careful evaluation helps us select only the most impactful studies for publication. Our peer reviewers bring a wealth of knowledge from diverse disciplines, and their constructive feedback is essential in maintaining the journal's integrity and excellence. Their insights not only strengthen individual manuscripts but also contribute to broader scholarly discussions, driving progress in their respective fields.
Peer Review Policy:
At the SJUOZ, we maintain a strict peer review process to guarantee the quality and reliability of every published article. Our policy ensures that all research meets the highest standards of scientific integrity while contributing to the progress of knowledge across different disciplines.
Peer review plays a vital role in our publication process, offering rigorous evaluation and valuable feedback on submitted manuscripts. To ensure quality, all research articles along with most other content types are carefully reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field.
We adhere to the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). When a manuscript is submitted, our editorial team first checks its completeness before assigning it to an Editor. This Editor evaluates whether the submission is suitable for peer review. To ensure fairness, we may reassign the manuscript to another Editorial Board member if any potential conflicts of interest arise.
We choose peer reviewers based on several key factors, such as their knowledge in the field, professional standing, referrals from others, and ensuring they have no competing interests. We also aim to include a diverse range of reviewers, taking into account their location, gender, race, ethnicity, and other background factors.
Peer reviewers should offer fair, helpful, and well-supported feedback on the manuscript's scientific quality, research methods, and overall importance. They evaluate whether the work is original, the findings are sound, the writing is clear, and if it meets the journal's publication standards. Reviewers are also expected to follow COPE's ethical guidelines for peer review.
The peer review process can vary depending on the journal's approach, some use open or transparent reviews, while others keep reviewers and authors anonymous. Regardless of the model, journals maintain confidentiality between reviewers and authors during the evaluation.
We deeply appreciate the time and expertise our peer reviewers contribute, and we want to acknowledge their important role. To show our gratitude, we offer reviewers the chance to get credit for their work they can track and display their verified peer review contributions through their ORCID profiles.
At SJUOZ, we uphold strict ethical standards in peer review while fostering integrity, diversity, and inclusion. We sincerely thank our reviewers for their quick, professional feedback—their dedication helps us make faster, fairer publishing decisions.
We welcome peer reviewers to share any concerns or questions they have while evaluating submissions just as we ask them to follow our Peer Review Policy. By working together, we maintain the high standards of published research and help push academic knowledge forward.
Peer Reviewer Selection
The selection of appropriate peer reviewers is essential to uphold the scholarly rigor and credibility of the publication process. At SJUOZ, reviewer selection is based on multiple criteria, including domain-specific expertise, academic standing, personalized recommendations, identification of competing interests, and historical evaluation performance. Preference is given to reviewers who exhibit efficiency, methodological rigor, critical analytical skills, and professional collaboration in their evaluations.
Editor Responsibilities:
- Editors must ensure that a minimum of two peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts presenting primary research or secondary analyses of primary data. However, in rare instances particularly in highly specialized or emerging research areas securing two independent reviewers may not be feasible. Under such conditions, editors may proceed with a decision based on a single review, provided it adheres to the established quality criteria detailed in subsequent guidelines.
- Peer review reports must be submitted in English and deliver a substantive, critical assessment of the manuscript, with particular emphasis on methodological validity, result accuracy, and the robustness of conclusions. Editorial decisions should be informed by detailed, well-reasoned reviewer feedback that adheres to these standards, rather than by brief or cursory evaluations lacking analytical justification. Reports failing to provide sufficient justification for their assessments may be deemed inadequate for decision-making purposes.
- Editors must independently authenticate the contact information of proposed reviewers, preferentially utilizing institutional email addresses to ensure legitimacy. Additionally, a minimum of one reviewer per manuscript must be selected independently of author recommendations to maintain impartiality in the evaluation process.
In exceptional cases were securing two independent peer reviewers is unfeasible, the Editor may either serve as the second reviewer or render an editorial decision based on a single review. However, this approach requires that the Editor possesses substantive expertise in the relevant discipline, endorses the review with a formal signature to uphold transparency, and confirms the report’s rigor and comprehensiveness. Furthermore, the sole external reviewer must be a senior scholar with recent, demonstrable contributions to the field.
Authors should refrain from recommending recent collaborators or colleagues affiliated with the same institution as potential reviewers. However, they may propose suitable reviewers in their cover letter. To ensure the credibility and qualifications of suggested reviewers, the Editor may request verification through institutional email addresses. All interactions between Editors and reviewers must remain confidential, and reviewers are expected to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review invitation. While the Editor retains ultimate authority in reviewer selection, certain exclusion requests may be considered, though compliance is not assured.
Peer Reviewer Diversity
SJUOZ is committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the peer review system. Editors are encouraged to engage reviewers representing diverse geographical locations, academic backgrounds, and underrepresented communities to enrich the evaluation process. This commitment ensures a multiplicity of perspectives, strengthening the rigor, fairness, and inclusivity of published research. SJUOZ fosters an equitable scholarly environment where all contributors are recognized and supported. In collaboration with Editors and reviewers, we uphold impartiality and excellence in peer review, aligning with the highest standards of academic integrity. We appreciate your partnership in promoting a diverse and inclusive review framework.
