•  
  •  
 

Peer Review and Editorial Process

Overview

Muthanna Medical Journal (MMJ) maintains a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of academic and scientific quality.

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations for the conduct and reporting of scholarly work.

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening, followed by double-blind peer review by independent experts in the relevant field.

1. Editorial Workflow

Initial Screening

  • All manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online Manuscript Tracking System.
  • Upon receipt, each submission is screened by the Editorial Office for completeness, format compliance, scope relevance, and plagiarism (using iThenticate).
  • The Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor reviews the manuscript to assess:
    • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
    • Originality, scientific merit, and ethical compliance.
    • Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts deemed out of scope, of insufficient quality, or ethically noncompliant are rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

Assignment to Handling Editor

If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor (a member of the Editorial Board) with relevant subject expertise and no conflict of interest. The Handling Editor oversees the peer review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and makes an editorial recommendation.

Reviewer Selection

  • Each submission is reviewed by at least two external, independent reviewers who possess expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
  • The journal maintains an international reviewer pool and uses specialized databases and editorial judgment to select reviewers.

Double-Blind Review Process

MMJ operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not have access to the authors’ names or affiliations.

This ensures objectivity and prevents bias based on gender, institution, nationality, or reputation.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific originality and novelty.
  • Clarity and accuracy of the research question.
  • Appropriateness of study design and methodology.
  • Ethical soundness and compliance with research standards.
  • Statistical rigor and interpretation of data.
  • Relevance to clinical or scientific practice.
  • Quality of writing, structure, and referencing.

2. Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer submits a report with constructive comments and a final recommendation of one of the following:

  1. Accept (Publish Unaltered) – Manuscript is scientifically sound and ready for publication.
  2. Minor Revision – Acceptable with minor changes or clarifications.
  3. Major Revision – Requires substantial revision or additional data before reconsideration.
  4. Reject – Does not meet scientific or ethical standards for publication.

3. Editorial Decisions

After receiving all reviewer reports, the Handling Editor suggests the decision and the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision based on reviewer feedback:

  • Accept: The paper proceeds to technical editing and publication.
  • Minor Revision: Authors are given time to make the requested changes. The editor reviews the revised manuscript to confirm that all comments have been addressed before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Authors are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript, addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is declined, and detailed feedback is provided to the authors.

If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected automatically.

All editorial decisions are final and made solely based on academic merit, scientific accuracy, and ethical integrity.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts must be submitted within the specified deadline (usually within 4 weeks). Failure to meet the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may file an appeal by writing to the Editor-in-Chief (Email:
) within 15 days of the decision. The appeal should include:

  • A detailed justification for reconsideration.
  • Evidence or new information supporting the appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor or member of the editorial board not involved in the initial decision, in accordance with COPE’s appeals and complaints policy.

6. Reviewer and Editor Conduct

  • All reviewers and editors must adhere to confidentiality and ethical responsibility.
  • Reviewers must not share or use unpublished data from a manuscript for personal advantage.
  • Editors must avoid handling manuscripts in which they have any personal, academic, or financial conflict of interest.
  • The Editor-in-Chief ensures that all editorial decisions are independent and unbiased.

7. Post-Acceptance

  • The Editorial Office performs a final technical and ethical check to confirm compliance with journal guidelines.
  • The article undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofing before online publication.
  • Authors are provided with proofs for final review before publication.

8. Publication Ethics and Transparency

The peer review process is designed to maintain transparency, accountability, and editorial integrity in line with COPE Core Practices. All reviewers’ and editors’ contributions are confidential, but the Editor-in-Chief’s name is displayed on each published article to acknowledge oversight responsibility.

9. Average Review Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening: 2–3 weeks
  • Peer review: 4–6 weeks
  • First decision: within 8 weeks of submission
  • Publication (after acceptance): within 2–3 weeks

10. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and correspondence are confidential. Personal data of authors, reviewers, and editors are protected in compliance with GDPR and the journal’s data privacy policy.

11. Editor-as-Author

1. Initial Submission Stage

  • Flag the Conflict Early: Use automated tools like Elsevier’s Check Integrity system to detect if the submitting author is also an editor. If flagged, the submission must be reassigned immediately to a higher-level independent editor.
  • Disclosure Requirement: The editor-author must declare their role in the journal in the manuscript’s Conflict of Interest section. If not provided, request an editorial disclosure statement.

2. Editorial Assignment

  • Reassign to Independent Editor: The submission must be handled by an editor with no personal or professional ties to the author. The original editor must be excluded from all stages of peer review and decision-making.
  • Document the Reassignment: Record the reassignment and rationale in the journal’s editorial management system for audit transparency.

3. Peer Review Process

  • Double-Blind Review: Ensure the manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by at least two external reviewers with no known conflicts.
  • Reviewer COI Checks: Require reviewers to complete a COI declaration form before accepting the review task.

4. Decision and Acceptance

  • Independent Decision: The final decision must be made by the reassigned editor, with no input from the editor-author.
  • Ethics Screening: Conduct a final ethics check before acceptance, including plagiarism screening and COI verification.

5. Post-Acceptance Transparency

  • Publish Disclosure: Include a statement in the published article noting that the author is an editor of the journal and that the manuscript was handled independently.
  • Editorial Oversight Acknowledgement: Display the name of the responsible editor on the article to ensure accountability.