Peer Review Process

All research manuscripts submitted for publication in Political Sciences Journal (PSJ) are subject to a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the review process.

The Journal engages qualified reviewers from the University of Baghdad as well as from other universities and academic institutions. All reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, subject specialization, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not be members of the Journal’s editorial team.

Manuscripts and peer-review reports are treated as confidential, and peer-review reports are not published with the published articles. Reviewers must not use any unpublished information, data, or ideas contained in the manuscript for personal or research purposes, nor disclose them to others.

The peer-review process proceeds as follows:

  1. Initial Screening of the Manuscript

The Journal conducts an initial screening of the manuscript within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt to ensure that the research topic is consistent with the Journal’s aims and scope, complies with its publication rules and requirements, and meets the basic requirements relating to format and academic quality.

The author is informed of the outcome of the initial screening before the manuscript is forwarded for peer review.

  1. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript, and the manuscript is sent to at least two reviewers.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, the relevance of their specialization to the research topic, their independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest. If a reviewer declines the invitation or does not respond, another qualified reviewer is invited to ensure that the required number of reviews is obtained.

  1. Response to Review Invitations and Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting a review assignment, the reviewer must ensure that they possess the appropriate academic expertise to evaluate the manuscript and have sufficient time to complete the review.

The reviewer must also disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality or independence. If a conflict of interest exists, if the reviewer lacks the appropriate expertise, or if they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they must decline the review assignment.

  1. Conducting the Peer Review

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript in terms of its originality, academic value, methodological soundness, clarity of objectives and research questions or hypotheses, quality of analysis and findings, and contribution to the field.

The reviewer submits a scholarly report containing comments, an evaluation, and a recommendation regarding the manuscript. The recommendation may be one of the following:

  • Accept the manuscript for publication.
  • Accept the manuscript subject to minor revisions.
  • Reconsider the manuscript after major revisions.
  • Reject the manuscript.

Supplementary materials submitted as an integral part of the manuscript, including relevant appendices, tables, and supporting data, are also considered as part of the peer-review process.

  1. Evaluation of Review Reports and Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief takes the reviewers’ reports and recommendations into consideration when making the editorial decision on the manuscript.

If there is a substantial disagreement between the two reviewers’ reports, the manuscript may be referred to a third reviewer for an additional academic evaluation before the final decision is made.

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ reports, the academic merit of the research, and its conformity with the Journal’s aims and editorial policies.

  1. Notification of the Editorial Decision

The author is informed of the editorial decision and is provided with the relevant reviewers’ comments that should be taken into consideration, while maintaining the confidentiality of the reviewers’ identities.

  1. Revisions and Further Review

If the reviewers request revisions to the manuscript, the author is required to make the requested revisions within the period specified by the Journal and to explain how the comments and recommendations contained in the reviewers’ reports have been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or sent to other reviewers for an additional round of review if the nature of the revisions requires further evaluation.

The Journal seeks to keep authors informed of the stages of the evaluation process and of decisions concerning their manuscripts.

  1. Submission of the Revised Manuscript

When resubmitting the revised manuscript, the author should clearly explain the changes made in response to the reviewers’ comments. A detailed response indicating how each comment or recommendation has been addressed is recommended.

If the author does not adopt any of the reviewers’ comments or recommendations, the scientific justification for doing so should be clearly stated.

  1. Duration of the Peer-Review Process

The initial peer-review process usually takes 4 to 8 weeks. If revisions are requested, the Journal grants the author a specified period within which to resubmit the revised manuscript, and the revised version may undergo another round of peer review before the final decision is made.

In the event of a substantial delay beyond the expected peer-review timeframe, the Journal informs the author of the reason for the delay and provides an update on the status of the manuscript. The author may request withdrawal of the manuscript if continuation of the evaluation process is no longer desired.