Peer Reviewer Guidelines
Peer Reviewer Guidelines
First: Initial Instructions
Before accepting or declining the invitation to review a submitted manuscript, please consider these questions, as they will help you in this regard:
- Does the current research align with your specific specialization? Accept the review request only if you believe you can conduct a robust and professional evaluation.
- Do you have any potential conflicts of interest with the research topic or the authors? Please communicate these concerns to the Editor-in-Chief when responding to the review request.
- Do you have sufficient time to review the research? A thorough scientific review requires considerable time. Before committing, ensure you are aware of the deadline for submitting the review.
Second: Manuscript Review Method
The scientific reviewer's evaluation should be a comprehensive and critical assessment of the manuscript submitted to Al-Rafidain Journal of Political Science, presented as a full report rather than a few brief sentences. While the journal does not require a specific template for the structure of the scientific review report, the following sections can be utilized:
- Summary.
- Major and Significant Issues.
- Minor and Small Issues.
The journal encourages the scientific reviewer to assist authors in improving the scientific content of their research papers. Therefore, the scientific review report should provide a constructive analysis with clear evidence to the author, especially concerning parts of the research that require modifications. In cases where the scientific reviewer prefers that the author not see their comments regarding the research, these comments can be sent confidentially to the journal's Editor-in-Chief.
While the review process may vary from one scientific reviewer to another, the reviewer should pay attention to the following aspects as much as possible:
- Has the current research topic been previously addressed?
- Has a contemporary political issue been raised?
- Is there a need for ethical approvals for conducting the research, or does it require such approvals?
- Is the study design sufficient to answer the research questions?
- Are the statistical tests used adequate? And are their results correctly presented?
- Are the figures and tables adequately explained? And do they accurately represent the results?
- Have the author's previous studies included in the current study been sufficiently discussed? And have the results of related studies been well-compared with the current research?
- Is there an incorrect inclusion of sources, such as using a source on a topic irrelevant to where it was cited? Or has the author excessively used their previous studies in the current research?
- Do the results of the current study support the conclusions section?
- Have the limitations of conducting the research been noted?
- Is the abstract an accurate summary of the current research and its results without repetition?
- Is the language of the current research clear and understandable?
To help authors make corrections quickly, the reviewer should send a copy of the reviewed manuscript via the journal's manuscript tracking system. The scientific reviewer should contact the journal if they are unable to complete the review within the specified time, in order to arrange an adjustment to the final submission deadline for the reviewed manuscript. The journal encourages the scientific reviewer to provide constructive criticism of the research under examination and to focus their report on objectivity regarding the scientific aspects of the research, which includes, for example, the soundness of the research methods and methodology.
At the end of the review process, the following question will be posed to the reviewer, asking which of these options they recommend for the research:
- Accepted
- Requires major corrections
- Requires moderate corrections
- Rejected
- Unable to evaluate the research
Third: Confidentiality in the Research Review Process
Manuscripts submitted for review must be kept strictly confidential throughout the entire review process. The scientific reviewer must not share information about the manuscript under review or discuss its content with any other person outside the review process. Upon request, the scientific reviewer may consult a colleague who is related to the research topic and is deemed trustworthy in maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript under review. In such a case, the reviewer must contact the journal or its Editor-in-Chief and inform them of the name of the colleague they wish to communicate with in this regard, including their information in the "Comment to the Editor" field in the review report.
Fuorth: Conflict of Interest
The scientific reviewer must decline to review a manuscript in any of the following cases:
- Having a specific commercial interest in the research topic.
- Having previously discussed or offered opinions/advice on the research topic with the author.
- Feeling unable to be objective in evaluating the research for any reason.