For Reviewer

Peer Review Model

The NTU Journal of Pure Sciences (NTU-JPS) adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review model. To ensure impartiality, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the entire process.

For more information, click here to view Peer Review Policy

Reviewer Responsibilities

We rely on our reviewers to uphold the high academic standards of the journal. By accepting an invitation to review, you agree to:

  • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and all review materials as strictly confidential. Do not share or discuss the content with anyone not directly involved in the review process.
  • Objectivity: Provide a constructive, objective evaluation based on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, and methodology.
  • Timeliness: Complete your review within the agreed timeframe. If you cannot meet the deadline, please notify the editor immediately.
  • Conflict of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) with the authors or the work. If a conflict exists, you must decline the invitation.
  • Integrity: Do not use any data or information obtained during the peer review process for personal gain or research advantage.

Use of AI in Peer Review

  • To protect the integrity and confidentiality of the review process, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscript text, figures, or data into Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT, translation bots).
  • Doing so is considered a breach of confidentiality.
  • Reviews must be generated solely based on your own expertise and judgment; using AI to generate review reports is not permitted.

The Review Process Overview

  • Initial Screening: All submissions are first checked by the Editor-in-Chief for scope, quality, and plagiarism (using Turnitin). Manuscripts with high similarity (generally >20%) may be rejected immediately.
  • Editor Assignment: Manuscripts passing screening are assigned to a Section/Handling Editor.
  • Reviewer Selection: The editor invites a minimum of two qualified external reviewers.
  • Evaluation: Reviewers assess the work and provide a recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • Decision: The handling editor recommends a decision based on the reports, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

Timelines

  • Initial Screening: 1–7 days.
  • Reviewer Response: Typically, 2–4 weeks per review round.
  • Revisions: Timelines vary depending on the depth of revision required.

Ethical Standards & Misconduct

  • Reviewer Manipulation: Actions such as suggesting fabricated reviewers or providing false contact information are considered misconduct.
  • Reporting Concerns: If you suspect misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) in a manuscript you are reviewing, please report it confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief or via jps.complaints@ntu.edu.iq.

For more information, click here to view the reviewer process guide.