Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process & Evaluation Forms

Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences (TJES)

After the article passes the plagiarism checking stage, and editor or editor section check, each manuscript will be reviewed by at least three independent referees who are within the subject area. Peer review serves two key functions: 1) Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published. 2) Improves the quality of the research: rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors.

1. First Screen by Editor or Editorial Board

Screening Checklist

  • ???? The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines. (Yes / No)
  • ???? The manuscript is within the specialized orientation of our journal. (Yes / No)
  • ???? The sobriety of manuscript language. (Yes / No)
  • ???? Using updated and sober international references and not including more than one conference paper. (Yes / No)
  • ???? The manuscript follows the structure of a scientific article. (Yes / No)
  • ???? Did all references relate to the current work? (Yes / No)
  • ???? Paper Novelty? (0 to 90 scale)

The Decision

  • Refer the manuscript to the reviewers with no comments.
  • Refer the manuscript to the reviewers and send your comments with reviewer comments.
  • Return the manuscript to the researchers for considering the following comments.
  • Return the manuscript to the researchers for grammar corrections.
  • Refuse the manuscript / Sent the manuscript for Editorial board meeting.

Additional Fields

Comments: Write your comments.

Suggest Reviewers: Please write Name, e-mail, phone no., and affiliation for every reviewer.

2. TJES Review Form

Please select a number to indicate your level of agreement with the following questions. Select the lowest value (1 Star *) to indicate that you disagree entirely, or the highest value (5 Stars *****) to indicate that you agree completely.

  • The Manuscript is within the scope of TJES journal
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • The Manuscript title reflects the content and purpose of the research.
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • The abstract includes information important for understanding the content.
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • The introduction clearly defines the purpose and objective of the work.
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • A review of previous researches are good and up to date?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • The methodology is clearly and adequate.
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • The results and discussions are adequate?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • The conclusions is based and contributes to the discharge of treated problems?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars) + Optional Comments
  • The references reflect the topicality of the article, and up to date?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • The Manuscript is free of technical errors?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • The figures are clear & do clearly convey the intended message?
    (Options: Well-balanced / Not all data represented / Redundant or irrelevant)
  • The Tables are clear & do clearly convey the intended message?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • Please rate the novelty of the information?
    (Rate 1 to 5 Stars)
  • Did this Manuscript make sense?
    (Yes / No)

Reviewer Recommendation

  • Accepted without modifications.
  • Accepted with minor corrections.
  • Accepted with major modifications.
  • Rejected.

Return manuscript after reply from Author If you have corrections? (Yes / No)

Comments to the Authors: [Text field]

Comments to TJES Editor: [Text field]

3. Checking Manuscript Modification by Reviewer

This form is used to check the revised manuscript.

Does the Author Consider all your comments? (Yes / No)

Please Specify:

  • The Author(s) made all corrections.
  • The Author(s) made most of the corrections.
  • The Author(s) made some of the corrections.
  • He didn't make any changes.

Comments (Please specify: where the Author's failure to answer the reviewer's questions): [Text field]

Suggest Reviewers if any: Please write Name, e-mail, phone no., and affiliation for every reviewer.

فحص تعديلات المخطوطة من قبل المراجع

يُستخدم هذا النموذج لفحص المخطوطة المعدّلة.

هل أخذ المؤلف جميع تعليقاتك بعين الاعتبار؟ (نعم / لا)

  • قام المؤلف/المؤلفون بإجراء جميع التعديلات.
  • قام المؤلف/المؤلفون بإجراء معظم التعديلات.
  • قام المؤلف/المؤلفون بإجراء بعض التعديلات.
  • لم يُجرِ أي تعديلات.

التعليقات (يرجى التحديد: أين فشل المؤلف في الرد على أسئلة المراجع؟): [حقل نصي]

اقتراح مراجعين (إن وجد): يرجى كتابة الاسم، البريد الإلكتروني، رقم الهاتف، والانتماء المؤسسي لكل مراجع.

4. Final Check & Production

Final Check By Section Editor

Please answer with “Yes” or “No”. If your answer is No, insert comments. If all “Yes”, put No comments.

  • ???? The researchers modified the Manuscript considering all required adjustments requested by the editorial board. (Yes / No / No comments)
  • ???? The researchers modified the Manuscript considering all required adjustments requested by the reviewers. (Yes / No)
  • ???? Plagiarism ratio of less than 20%? (Yes / No / No Plagiarism report attached)
  • ???? The Manuscript is printed according to the TJES template. (Yes / No)
  • ???? Manuscript language is sobriety? (Yes / No)

The Decision:

  • Refer the Manuscript to the researcher to consider the above comments.
  • Send Manuscript to Chief in Editor for issuing an acceptance letter.
  • Send Manuscript to Chief in Editor for issuing an acceptance letter after modified according to TJES template.
  • Reject the manuscript?

Upload Final Version & Post-Production

Authors: Please upload the final version of your manuscript (MS Word) via the system. Ensure the article is written according to Author Guidelines, includes full author details (Email, Affiliation, ORCID), and uses the correct TJES references style.

Receiving the final version: The corresponding author receives a final copy in the discussion field (production tab) to make notes/modifications. Once published, the manuscript cannot be modified.

Erratum: If a necessary modification is required post-publication, the author can submit an erratum and pay fees. An erratum is for production errors, while a corrigendum is for an author's error.

5. Generative AI Guidelines for Reviewers & Editors

Evaluating a scientific paper entails duties uniquely inherent to human capabilities. The essential critical thinking and evaluation necessary for peer-review exceed what generative AI and AI-assisted tools can provide, leading to potential issues of inaccuracies, incompleteness, or bias.

  • No Data Inputting: Manuscripts or any sections thereof should not be inputted into Generative AI platforms by reviewers or editors due to the lack of assurance regarding destination, storage, or future utilization. This protects confidentiality, ownership, and data privacy.
  • Confidentiality in Communications: The obligation of confidentiality also applies to peer review feedback and related communications (notification or decision emails). These should not be entered into an AI platform, even for enhancing language and clarity.
  • Prohibited for Decision-Making: The employment of Generative AI in aiding the review, assessment, or decision-making procedures for a manuscript is strictly prohibited.

TJES is dedicated to the ongoing development of in-house or licensed technologies that support editors and reviewers while upholding confidentiality standards.