Editorial Workflow
The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle. The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online Manuscript Tracking System. All manuscripts submitted to Muthanna Journal of Pure Science will undergo extensive peer review by our Editorial Board Members and blind reviews by two reviewers. Following is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts undergo. The editorial process can be summarized as follow:
- After author submits a manuscript, it receives a tracking number.
- The editorial office performs an initial quality check on the manuscript to ensure that the paper is correctly formatted.
- An Editor in Chief is assigned to the manuscript and decides whether to send the manuscript to a Senior Editor for assessment. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for assessment, the Editor in Chief contacts the author with the decision. (https://www.christophechoo.com/)
- If the Editor in Chief decides the paper is within the Journal’s scope and may be suitable for review, the Editor in Chief will assign the paper to a Senior Editor.
- The Senior Editor then assesses the manuscript for its quality and perceived level of advance and then either recommend a rejection decision or assigns peer reviewers. This can take some time depending on the responsiveness and availability of reviewers selected.
- Reviewers are given a few days from acceptance to submit their reports. Once the required reports are submitted the Senior Editor will make a decision recommendation to the Editor in Chief based on the rankings and comments received.
- The Editor in Chief makes the final decision.
Peer review
To make a sufficient review process, only manuscripts that may be to meet high reviewer recommendations for publication priority, level of advance, and scientific quality are sent for external peer review. Manuscripts rated by the editors to be of insufficient general interest are rejected promptly without external review. The editor will send the manuscript to a minimum of 2 reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:
- Provisional Acceptance
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject with the option to resubmit
- Reject
MJPS has a double-blinded peer-review process in which the reviewers don’t know who the authors of the manuscript are, and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are.
Final Decision
In order for the senior editor to provide a manuscript recommendation, at least two completed reviews are required. Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the senior editor will be notified. The senior editor will then send their recommendations to the Regional Editor-in-Chief. The Regional Editor-in-Chief delivers and informs the author of the final decision.
If the manuscript is provisionally accepted, authors must submit a revised version of their paper for additional review after making the necessary edits in accordance with the Editor’s suggestions.