Peer Review Policy

Initial Evaluation and Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Manager initially screen all submissions received by the editorial office of Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences (DJES) to determine whether they comply with the journal’s author guidelines, formatting requirements, ethical policies, and declared aims and scope. Submissions that do not properly follow the journal’s formatting requirements may be returned to the corresponding author(s) for revision and resubmission within one week. The Editor-in-Chief may reject submissions that do not comply with the journal’s ethical policies, publication requirements, or aims and scope without sending them for external peer review.

If a submission is considered suitable for further consideration, the Editor-in-Chief will assign it for plagiarism and similarity checking using Turnitin or other appropriate similarity-checking software. If the similarity result is within the journal’s acceptable limits, as defined in the Plagiarism Policy, the submission will proceed to the peer-review process. If the similarity result exceeds the acceptable limits, the manuscript may be rejected or returned to the author(s) for correction, depending on the nature, extent, and source of the similarity.

Peer Review

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences applies a double-blind peer-review process, which means that the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. To support this process, authors must submit an anonymized manuscript file that does not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, or any other identifying details.

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it will be assigned to a Section Editor, who will assess its scientific suitability and recommend appropriate reviewers within the scope of the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will then assign the manuscript to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board or external specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers suggested by the author(s) may be considered, but they are not guaranteed to be invited and will be screened for potential conflicts of interest before any invitation is sent. Based on the title and abstract of the manuscript, invited reviewers may accept or decline the review invitation.

The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports, together with their recommendations, to the Editor-in-Chief within three to four weeks. The possible reviewer recommendations are:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Accept with Major Revisions
• Reject

If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, particularly when one reviewer recommends rejection while another recommends acceptance or revision, the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third independent reviewer to provide an additional assessment.

The first round of the review process is normally expected to be completed within approximately five to six weeks, with a maximum period of three months under ordinary circumstances.

Manuscripts that require revision will be returned to the corresponding author(s) together with the reviewers’ comments. The corresponding author(s) should submit the revised manuscript to the editorial office within two weeks. Manuscripts may be considered withdrawn if the revision deadline is exceeded without an approved extension. A request for extension may be considered if it is submitted before the revision deadline. The corresponding author(s) must respond to reviewers’ comments in a detailed point-by-point response letter. Any disagreement with reviewers’ suggestions should be clearly, respectfully, and scientifically justified.

The Editor-in-Chief will then assess whether the revised manuscript has adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments. When necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the same reviewers or to additional reviewers for further evaluation.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers’ comments, the Section Editor’s assessment, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the journal’s editorial policies. The possible final decisions are:

Accept

If the Editor-in-Chief recommends “Accept,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Accept with Minor Revisions

If the Editor-in-Chief recommends “Accept with Minor Revisions,” the authors are requested to prepare and submit a final version of the manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers or editors. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made. Once the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that the required changes have been adequately addressed, the manuscript may be accepted.

Major Revisions Required

If major revisions are required, the manuscript must undergo further evaluation after revision by the author(s). The author(s) will be requested to resubmit the revised manuscript within two weeks. The revised version may be sent back to the same reviewers for further assessment. Once the revised manuscript is submitted and evaluated, the Editor-in-Chief may make one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions Required, Major Revisions Required, or Reject.

Reject

If the Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the manuscript, the rejection decision is issued to the corresponding author(s) with the main reason(s) for rejection. In addition, if two reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript will normally be rejected. The editors have the authority to reject any manuscript due to the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of originality, insufficient scientific contribution, methodological weakness, ethical concerns, or incorrectness of its results.

Author Appeals

If the final decision on a submitted manuscript is rejection, the Editor-in-Chief will notify the corresponding author(s) of the reason(s) for rejection. The rejection decision may be appealed by sending an email to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. The appellant author(s) must provide a comprehensive scientific justification, including point-by-point responses to the comments of the reviewers and/or editors.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult the journal editors or independent experts when appropriate. The outcome of the appeal may be to maintain the original rejection decision, request further peer review, or reconsider the manuscript. The appeal decision is final.

Publication

If a manuscript is accepted, the Editor-in-Chief will send an acceptance letter to the corresponding author(s), including information about publication fees in accordance with the journal’s Article Processing Charge policy. The manuscript will then be sent to the technical editor for copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and publication processing.

Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Manager, Section Editors, Editorial Board members, or any person with a potential editorial conflict of interest will be handled independently. The concerned editor or board member will be excluded from all stages of the editorial and peer-review process, including initial assessment, reviewer selection, access to reviewer reports, editorial discussion, and final decision. Such manuscripts will be assigned to an independent editor with no conflict of interest. The final decision will be based solely on external peer review, scientific merit, and the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.