Guide for Reviewers

Criteria for Publication & Peer Review Guidelines

  1. Criteria for Publication

For a manuscript to be published in the Nineveh University Journal of Medical Sciences (NUJMS), it must:

  • Be scientifically valid.
  • Demonstrate rigorous methodology and analysis.
  • Present accurate, transparent, and ethical research.

Manuscripts are assessed for quality, clarity, and methodological soundness. Broader importance, significance, or impact is left for the research community to evaluate after publication.

 

  1. Reviewer Selection

NUJMS maintains a rigorous peer review process. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Publication record in reputable journals.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Previous reviewing experience and professionalism.

Before accepting a review, reviewers should consider:

  • Expertise: Is this within my area of specialization?
  • Conflict of Interest: Can I remain unbiased? If not, I will inform the editor.
  • Availability: Can I submit the review by the deadline?

While authors may suggest reviewers, final selection is at the sole discretion of the Editorial Board.

 

  1. Review Process

The Editorial Board evaluates each manuscript’s merit, originality, significance, and relevance to the journal. Decisions are based on reviewer reports and author responses.

Possible decisions:

  1. Accept – Ready for publication.
  2. Minor Revision – Small adjustments needed to address specific concerns.
  3. Major Revision – Substantial changes required; failure to meet standards after revision may lead to rejection.
  4. Reject – Out of scope, poor quality, lack of rigor, or ethical concerns.

Resubmitted manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers. If revisions show insufficient effort to address feedback, the manuscript will not be re-sent for review.

 

  1. Guidelines for Writing a Review

A-Key Evaluation Criteria

Technical Soundness:

  • Are the methods appropriate, properly conducted, and clearly described?
  • Is the statistical analysis accurate and justified?

 Scientific Validity

  • Are claims fully supported by the data?
  • Is any key information missing?

Context & Clarity

  • Are findings discussed in relation to prior literature?
  • Is the manuscript well-structured and clear?

 Ethical Considerations

  • Have ethical approvals and participant consent been documented?
  • Are there concerns about research involving human or animal subjects?

 

  1. Suggested Review Structure

Please address each of the following points either in Comments for the Editor (private) or Comments for the Author (shared with authors):

  1. Brief Summary
    • Outline the study’s objectives and key findings to confirm your understanding of the work.
  2. General Assessment
    • Highlight the manuscript’s overall strengths and weaknesses.
  3. Journal-Specific Compliance
    • Does the manuscript meet NUJMS style requirements?
    • Does it comply with ethical and authorship standards?
  4. Section-by-Section Feedback
    • Title & Abstract – Are they clear, concise, and accurate?
    • Introduction – Is the background adequate and the rationale well explained?
    • Methods – Are they transparent, valid, reproducible, and ethically approved where required?
    • Results – Are findings presented clearly, accurately, and with correct statistical analysis?
    • Discussion & Conclusion – Are they supported by the data and do they address limitations?
    • References – Are they relevant, current, and in Vancouver format?
  5. Ethical Concerns
    • Privately report any suspicion of plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or research ethics violations in the Comments for the Editor section.

 

If Annotating the Manuscript

  • Use the blind manuscript file provided to add comments or tracked changes.
  • Save the file with “_ReviewerNotes” appended to the filename.
  • Upload it as part of your review under Annotated Manuscript.
  1. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of your review, select one recommendation:

  • ✔ Accept – Publish as is.
  • ✔ Minor Revisions – Minor improvements required.
  • ✔ Major Revisions – Significant changes needed before reconsideration.
  • ✔ Reject – Does not meet NUJMS standards.

If recommending revisions, state whether you are willing to review the revised version.

 

  1. Reviewer Conduct
  • Be constructive – Help authors improve their work.
  • Be professional – Keep feedback respectful and clear.
  • Be timely – Submit reviews within the agreed deadline.

 

  1. Confidentiality

All submissions are treated as strictly confidential:

  • Editors, reviewers, and staff must not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process.
  • Reviewers must not use unpublished data for personal or professional benefit.
  • Authors should not disclose manuscript details before publication.

Any breach of confidentiality may result in reviewer exclusion or manuscript withdrawal.

 

  1. Anonymity

NUJMS follows a double-blind review process:

  • Reviewer identities are hidden from authors.
  • Author identities are hidden from reviewers.
  • Reviewers may voluntarily disclose their identity to authors only via the editor.

For questions, contact:
 Email: nujms@uoninevah.edu.iq