Guide for Reviewers

 

Peer Review Policy Al-Nahrain Journal for Engineering Sciences (NJES) follows a double-blind peer review policy, meaning the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

 

1. Accepting an Invitation Upon receiving an invitation to review, you will be provided with the manuscript’s abstract. Please consider the following before accepting:

  • Specialty: Is the subject matter within your range of expertise?.

  • Time: Can you respond promptly to prevent delays?.

  • Conflicts: Are there any conflicts of interest, ethical issues, or plagiarism concerns?.

Ethical Note: Reviewers should never ask authors to cite the reviewers’ own articles, in accordance with COPE ethical guidelines.

2. Conducting the Review We suggest keeping a separate file or notepad open to number your notes while reading. This eases the modification process for authors and rechecking for reviewers.

First Reading Considerations During your initial skim-read, please address the following to form an overall impression:

  • Originality: How original is the topic, and what does it add to the subject area compared to existing publications?.

  • Clarity: Is the text clear, and is the methodology logical and consistent?.

  • Evidence: Are the conclusions consistent with the arguments presented?.

  • Visuals: Do tables and figures aid understanding, or are they superfluous?.

Identifying Major Flaws If you identify major flaws, please provide written reasoning and supporting evidence (with citations where possible). Major flaws include:

  • Conclusions that contradict the author's own evidence.

  • Use of discredited research methods or unsound methodology.

  • Disregard for influential processes in the study area.

  • Insufficient or contradictory data.

  • Unclear or ambiguous sentence structure and arguments.

3. Language and Editing Your primary role is to judge the scientific content, not to fix grammatical or spelling issues.

  • Assessment: If the manuscript is intelligible but has poor language, suggest improvements. If the text is too difficult to understand, you may recommend rejection.

  • Responsibility: Authors are responsible for editing their manuscript. Reviewers should only highlight language mistakes if they affect the clarity of the meaning.

4. Section-by-Section Evaluation Guide

  • Introduction: Should summarize recent research, highlight gaps/conflicts in current knowledge, and establish the originality of the research aims.

    • Note on References: References used to establish a conflict in current understanding should not be over 10 years old unless justified (e.g., new data collection techniques or re-exploration of older fields).

  • Materials and Methods: Must be detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the experiments. Data must not appear to be found by chance, and ethical standards must be maintained.

  • Results and Discussion: Authors should describe what the data show, reference suitable statistical analysis, and evaluate the importance of the results by referencing published research.

  • Conclusion: Must be based on reliable evidence. If unsupported by the data, reviewers should request a rewrite.

  • References: Please check the accuracy of the references.

    • Research Papers: Should have 20–25 listed references.

    • Review Papers: Should have over 25 listed references.

5. Final Recommendations The benchmark for accepting a manuscript is its usefulness in contributing to the knowledge base of the subject matter.

  • Constructive Feedback: Please list all major flaws in an orderly manner. Even if rejecting, try to communicate positive aspects to help the author progress.

  • Rejection: You hold the right to reject the manuscript in a second reading if the authors fail to conduct required modifications or fail to provide a proper explanation for not doing so.