Manuscripts submitted to CESTJ are reviewed by at least three experts. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s quality and scientific contribution and indicate whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
1. Invitation to Review
- Reviewers will receive an invitation email with the manuscript title and abstract .
- Upon acceptance, a follow-up email provides access to the full manuscript .
- Reviewers are requested to evaluate:
- Scientific soundness and methodological rigor
- Novelty and significance of the research
- Overall merit and contribution to the field
- Presentation quality and readability
- Relevance and sobriety of references
2. Confidentiality and Anonymity
- Manuscript content (including the title and abstract) must remain strictly confidential.
- CESTJ, operates a single-blind peer review process:
- Do not reveal your identity in comments or review files.
- Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
3.Timelines
- Reviews should be completed within the assigned timeframe.
- If more time is needed, reviewers should contact the editor to request an extension.
4. Preparing the Review Report
Review reports must be constructive, specific, and professional, containing:
A. General Overview
-
- A brief summary of the manuscript’s purpose, contributions, and strengths.
B. Major Comments
- Comments on:
- Methodological issues
- Hypothesis validation
- Weaknesses in the manuscript
- Clarity and completeness of review topics (if applicable)
- Missing controls or data
C. Specific Comments
- Point-by-point feedback indicating line numbers, figures, or tables.
- Highlight:
- Issues with data or interpretation
- Scientific inconsistencies
- Unclear statements
5. Review Checklist
Consider the following questions during evaluation:
- Scientific Rigor: Are experiments well-designed? Are results reproducible?
- Clarity & Relevance: Is the manuscript clear, relevant, and well-structured?
- Figures & Tables: Are they necessary, readable, and well-labeled?
- Ethics: Are ethical and data availability statements provided and adequate?
- Conclusion: Are conclusions logically supported by the data?
- References: Are they current (mainly within 5 years)? Is there excessive self-citation?
6. Manuscript Rating Criteria
Rate each of the following areas:
| Criteria | Evaluation Points |
| Title | Specific and relevant? |
| Abstract | Concise and informative? |
| Methodology | Appropriate and detailed? |
| Data | Sufficient and supports conclusions? |
| Writing Quality | Clear, professional, and grammatically sound? |
| Figures and Tables | Relevant, high quality, well-annotated? |
| Terminology Use | Correct use of terms, symbols, and abbreviations? |
| Originality/Novelty | Significant contribution to the field? |
| Significance | Are results meaningful and impactful? |
| Presentation Quality | Is the paper well-organized and formatted? |
| Scientific Soundness | Is the research valid and reproducible? |
| Interest to Readers | Will it appeal to IJMRAI readers? |
| Overall Merit | Does it meaningfully advance knowledge? |
7. Ethical Standards
- Manuscripts must present original work, not submitted or published elsewhere.
- Proper citation of others’ work is required.
- For biological or human/animal studies, ethical standards must be followed and disclosed.
8. Reviewer Comments Structure
Please provide:
- Rank: Rate the manuscript compared to others in the field.
- General Comments: Assess novelty and significance.
- Comments to Authors: Visible to the author—must be constructive and detailed.
- Comments to Editors: Confidential—visible only to the editorial team.
9. Recommendation Options
| Recommendation | Description |
| Publish without revision | Accept as is. |
| Publish with Minor Revisions | Accept with small, non-critical changes. |
| Publish with Major Revisions | Significant changes required; re-evaluation needed. |
| Reject | Manuscript has fundamental flaws and is not suitable for publication. |
Authors must submit a response letter addressing all reviewer comments, especially for major revisions.
If you have any questions or require clarification during the review process, please contact the editorial office: ammardakhil@cestj.edu.iq