The Journal of Sulaimani Medical College (JSMC) uses a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts and maintain the scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of its published content.
JSMC uses double-anonymous peer review for research manuscripts.
JSMC may use additional reviewers when necessary, particularly when a manuscript covers multiple disciplines or when the reviewers' assessments substantially differ.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.
The editorial assessment considers:
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined before external peer review.
An initial editorial assessment does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the article type, including, where applicable:
Reviewers may recommend:
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor based on the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's scientific quality, and the journal's editorial policies.
Manuscripts submitted to JSMC are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
Authors and reviewers should not attempt to identify one another during the review process.
The journal may disclose reviewer identities where required by law, research-integrity procedures, or other exceptional circumstances.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
A reviewer should decline the invitation when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the impartiality of the review.
Potential conflicts may include:
Editors are also required to identify and appropriately manage conflicts of interest in editorial decision-making.
Reviewers are expected to provide:
Reviewers should clearly distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor editorial or presentation issues.
Where appropriate, manuscripts involving complex study designs, advanced statistical methods, or specialized methodology may be referred to an additional statistical or methodological reviewer.
Such additional review does not replace the requirement for independent peer review.
Supplementary materials that form an important part of the scientific content of a manuscript may be considered as part of the peer-review process.
Authors should ensure that supplementary files are accurate, complete, and consistent with the main manuscript.
Reviewer reports are normally provided to authors anonymously as part of the editorial decision and revision process.
JSMC does not routinely publish reviewer reports or reviewer identities alongside published articles.
The journal may introduce a transparent or open peer-review practice in the future, subject to an appropriate policy and notification to authors and reviewers.
The final decision regarding a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated editor.
Decisions may include:
Editorial decisions take into account the reviewers' recommendations but are not determined solely by a numerical vote or recommendation.
The editor responsible for the manuscript may seek additional reviews or clarification when reviewer assessments are conflicting, insufficient, or raise methodological or ethical concerns.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations and are independent of publication charges or an author's ability to pay.
JSMC aims to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within approximately 4–6 weeks of submission, where circumstances permit.
The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and other editorial circumstances.
Where significant delays occur, the journal will make reasonable efforts to inform the corresponding author.
Authors may contact the editorial office regarding the status of a manuscript.
When revisions are requested, authors should respond to reviewer and editorial comments in a clear, point-by-point manner and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers when appropriate.
The editor may request additional revisions before reaching a final decision.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or interpretive error affected the decision.
An appeal should:
Appeals should not simply repeat arguments already considered during peer review.
The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal and may consult an independent editor or additional expert where appropriate.
The outcome of an appeal is final within the journal's editorial process.
The peer-review process may differ according to article type.
Research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other scholarly manuscripts requiring scientific evaluation undergo external peer review.
Editorials, letters, commentaries, corrections, retractions, and other non-research content may be subject to editorial assessment rather than the full external peer-review process, where appropriate.
The review process applied to an article will be appropriate to its type and will be clearly identifiable within the journal's editorial workflow.
Any special issue or collection of manuscripts overseen by guest editors remains subject to JSMC's standard editorial and peer-review requirements.
Special-issue manuscripts must undergo appropriate external peer review and editorial oversight.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the content and editorial integrity of the journal, including special issues.
Manuscripts submitted by guest editors or individuals with a conflict of interest must be handled through an independent editorial and peer-review process.
JSMC may acknowledge reviewers who have contributed to the journal during the year, provided that doing so does not compromise reviewer confidentiality.
Reviewer names will not be linked to individual manuscripts or published reviewer reports unless the journal formally adopts an open peer-review system.
JSMC is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance of submitted manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, originality, relevance, and the overall contribution of the manuscript to the field.
Peer review is conducted independently of publication charges, and payment of any publication charge does not influence the outcome of peer review or editorial decision-making.