The Iraqi Journal of Political Science employs a double-blind peer review process (authors' names are withheld from reviewers and reviewers' names from authors). Articles are submitted for confidential review by experts in the relevant field. The Political Science Journal also relies on external reviewers in addition to the assistance provided by internal reviewers. The review process is conducted according to the following steps:
1. The journal conducts an initial review of manuscripts within one week of receipt to ensure the research aligns with the journal's aims and scope, and adheres to publication guidelines, quality standards, and formatting requirements. Authors are notified of the results of this review before the research is submitted to the peer review process.
2. Inviting Reviewers: The editor-in-chief sends invitations to individuals deemed suitable as reviewers. Upon receiving responses, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of accepted reviewers (two accepted reviewers) is reached.
3. Responding to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their experience, conflict of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. Please refer to the Reviewer Guidelines section of this website.
4. Reviewing Procedure: The reviewer dedicates time to reading the article several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If significant problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further work. Otherwise, they will read the article several times, taking notes to build a detailed, point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation for acceptance or rejection—or with a request for revision (usually marked as major or minor) before further consideration.
5. Journal Evaluation of Review: The editor-in-chief considers all returned review decisions before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer for further input before making any decision.
6. Main Decision: The editor-in-chief emails the decision to the author, including any relevant review comments. The reviewer's name is anonymous to the author(s).
7. Final Decisions may include: acceptance, rejection, or revision (major or minor). In the case of revision, the research may undergo a second or more rounds of review if the revisions require further review. The journal strives to complete all review rounds within a reasonable timeframe and keeps authors fully informed of the decision's progress at each stage.
8. Author Submission of Revised Article: The author must make the changes requested by the reviewer and highlight these changes in red or yellow.
9. The initial review process typically takes 4 to 8 weeks. If revisions are requested, the journal grants authors a specific timeframe for resubmission. The revised version may be reviewed again by the same or new reviewers before a final decision is made.