Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process followed by IJMHS can be summarized as follows:

1. Submission of Paper:

 The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal, typically through an online system such as OJS.

2. Editorial Office Assessment:

The journal's editorial office evaluates the paper's compliance with the Author Guidelines, ensuring that it includes all the required sections and adheres to the prescribed style. At this stage, the quality of the paper is not assessed.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and Editorial Board Members:

 The Editor-in-Chief assigns the submitted articles to editorial board members who possess expertise in the relevant subject matter. The EIC and board members evaluate whether the paper aligns with the journal's scope, possesses sufficient originality and interest. If deemed unsuitable, the paper may be rejected without further review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers:

 The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to potential reviewers who are believed to possess the appropriate expertise. Additional invitations are issued as needed until the required number of reviewers (usually three) accept the invitation.

5. Response to Invitations:

Invited reviewers evaluate the invitation considering their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They may accept or decline the invitation. If declining, they may suggest alternative reviewers if possible.

6. Review Process:

The peer review process typically involves an exchange between the Chief Editor and the reviewers. Reviewers carefully read the paper and provide individual critiques, usually within a four-week timeframe. During the review, reviewers:

  • Comment on the scientific validity, identifying any scientific errors and evaluating the design and methodology employed.
  • Assess the significance of the findings and their importance in the field.
  • Evaluate the originality of the work by assessing its contribution to advancing the field.
  • Identify any missing or inaccurate references.
  • Recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision of the paper. While editors are not bound to follow these recommendations, they are usually considered.

Reviewers then submit their reviews to the journal, along with their recommendation to accept, reject, or request revisions (either major or minor) before reconsideration.

7. Journal Evaluation of Reviews:

The Chief Editor evaluates all the returned reviews, taking into account any contradictory results. In some cases, an additional reviewer may be consulted to provide further opinions.

8. Communication of Decision:

The Editor communicates the decision to the author via email, including relevant reviewer comments. Whether the reviewer comments are anonymous or not depends on the journal's peer review policy.

9. Final Steps:

If the paper is accepted, it proceeds to the production stage. If the article is rejected or requires revision, the handling editor provides constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. Reviewers are also informed of the outcome of their review via email or letter. In the case of revision, reviewers may receive a revised version of the paper unless they have chosen not to participate further. Minor revisions may be reviewed by the handling editor.

 

Principles of Transparency

  • Peer review process: IJMHS is a semiannual publication that focuses on medical and health research and sciences. It undergoes a double-blind peer review process and is available in both electronic and print formats. The journal's website, provides a clear description of this process, as well as any policies related to peer review procedures.

 

 

  • Contact information: The Journal provided the contact information for the editorial office of IJMHS https://ijmhs.mtu.edu.iq/mhtj/index.php/home/ContactUs

 

  • Author fees / Access: rewrite: The magazine is completely open, meaning all articles and access to the magazine's contents are free for publishers.

 

  • Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Editor-in-Chief takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others.

 

  • Website: A journal’s website (https://IJMHS.mtu.edu.iq/index.php/MHTJ/about) contains that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards.

 

  • Name of journal: The name of Iraqi Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (IJMHS) is unique and no one is easily confused with other journals.

 

  • Conflicts of Interests (Authors): Authors are asked whether impending conflicts do or do not exist while submitting their articles to IJMHS through the Conflict of Interest disclosure form.

 

  • Conflict of Interests (Editors and Reviewers): Editors and reviewers associated with Medical and Health Techniques Journal are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect their impartiality or objectivity in the review and editorial process. This includes but is not limited to financial interests, personal relationships, academic collaborations, or institutional affiliations that could influence their judgment. In case of any such conflicts, editors, and reviewers are expected to recuse themselves from handling submissions or reviewing articles where their impartiality might be compromised. Transparency and adherence to ethical standards are vital to maintaining the integrity and fairness of our editorial and review processes.

 

Handling Cases of Misconduct

Once the journal confirms a violation of the publication ethics, IJMHS addresses ethical concerns diligently, following an issue-specific standard practice as summarized below.

 

  • The first action of the section's editor is to inform the Editor and the Editorial Office by supplying copies of the relevant material and a draft letter to the corresponding author asking for an explanation in a nonjudgmental manner.
  • If the corresponding author's explanations are unacceptable, and it seems that serious unethical conduct has occurred, the matter is referred to the Editorial board via the Editorial Office. After deliberation, the editorial board will decide whether the case is sufficiently serious to warrant a ban on future submissions.
  • If the infraction is less severe, the Editor, upon the advice of the Publication Committee, sends the author a letter of disapproval and reminds the author about IJMHS publication and ethical policies; if the manuscript has been published, the Editor may request the author to publish an apology in the journal to correct the record.
  • A notification will be sent to the corresponding author. Any work by the author responsible for the violation or any work these persons co-authored under review by the IJMHS journal will be rejected immediately.
  • The authors are prohibited from serving on the IJMHS editorial board and serving as a reviewer for the IJMHS Journal. However, IJMHS reserves the right to take more action.
  • In extreme cases, notifications will be sent to the authors' affiliations, and the authors are prohibited from submitting their work to IJMHS for 5 years.
  • In serious fraud cases that result in the retraction of the article, a retraction notice will be published in the journal and linked to the article in the online version. The online version will also be marked “retracted” with the retraction date.

Violation of Publication Ethics

  • Plagiarism: Plagiarism intentionally uses someone else’s ideas or other original material as if they are one's own. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation, is considered by IJMHS Journals as plagiarism. All manuscripts under review or published with IJMHS are subject to screening using plagiarism-prevention software. Thus, plagiarism is a serious violation of publication ethics. The development of CrossCheck is a service that helps editors to verify the originality of papers. CrossCheck is powered by Turnitin software, known in the academic community as a provider of Turnitin. For a searchable list of all journals in the CrossCheck database.
  • Data Fabrication and Falsification: Data fabrication and falsification mean the researcher did not carry out the study but made up data or results and recorded or reported the fabricated information. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment but manipulated, changed, or omitted data or results from the research findings.
  • Simultaneous Submission: Simultaneous submission occurs when a manuscript (or substantial sections from a manuscript) is submitted to a journal when it is already under consideration by another journal.
  • Duplicate Publication: Duplicate publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross-referencing, share essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and conclusions.
  • Redundant Publications: Redundant publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles, most often consequent to the desire to plump academic vitae.
  • Improper Author Contribution or Attribution: All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.
  • Citation Manipulation: Citation Manipulation includes excessive citations in the submitted manuscript that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely to increase citations to a given author’s work or articles published in a particular journal. This leads to misrepresenting the importance of the specific work and journal in which it appears and is thus a form of scientific misconduct.
  • Sanctions: If there are documented violations of any of the above-mentioned policies in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in a journal, the following sanctions will be applied: (i) Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript, (ii)Immediate rejection of every other manuscript submitted to any journal published by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript, (iii) Prohibition will be imposed for a minimum of 36 months against all of the authors for any new submissions to any journal, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, and (iv) Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal.

 

Appeals and Complaints

  1. Policy and Process

This procedure pertains to appeals concerning editorial decisions, grievances regarding process failures, such as significant delays in paper handling, and complaints about publication ethics. Initially, the Editor-in-Chief(s) of the relevant journal or the editor responsible for managing the paper should handle the complaint. If they are the subject of the complaint, please contact the in-house publishing representative at:

IJMHS@mtu.edu.iq

 

  1. Complaint about scientific content (e.g., an appeal against rejection)

The Editor-in-Chief or the Handling Editor carefully evaluates the authors' assertions and the feedback from reviewers to determine:

  1. Whether the rejection decision remains valid.
  2. Whether an additional unbiased viewpoint is necessary.
  3. If the appeal merits consideration.

The individual who filed the complaint is notified of the decision, along with an explanation if deemed necessary. Rulings on appeals are conclusive, and priority is given to new submissions over appeals.

 

  1. Complaint about processes (e.g., time taken to review)

The Editor-in-Chief, along with the Handling Editor (as needed) and/or the in-house contact (as necessary), will investigate the issue. The individual who filed the complaint will receive relevant feedback. This feedback is shared with the relevant stakeholders to enhance processes and protocols.

 

  1. Complaint about publication ethics (e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct)

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics. They have the option to seek guidance from the publisher's in-house contact for complex cases. After evaluating the situation, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor determines a course of action and offers feedback to the individual raising the concern. Should the complainant still express dissatisfaction with the handling of their complaint, they have the opportunity to submit the matter to the Committee on Publication Ethics.