Information For Readers

Duties of Editors and Reviewers

The topical editor is exclusively and independently responsible for deciding which manuscript, submitted to the Al-Nahrain Journal of Science, is worth publishing in the journal. The editors’ decisions are based on the significance of the works submitted to the journal and their importance to the researchers and the readers. The editors are guided by the following:

  1. The reviewers’ comments and recommendations.
  2. Policies of the journal’s editorial board.
  3. Legal issues related to copyright and plagiarism.

Editors of the Al-Nahrain Journal of Science are responsible of the following:

  1. Peer-review of all manuscripts received by the journal based on unbiased and timely procedures. Each research paper should be reviewed by three external and independent reviewers.
  2. A topical editorial committee shall select the reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field of discipline. A selected topical processing editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by the reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
  3. Editors shall evaluate manuscripts submitted to the journal without regard to gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, and citizenship of the contributing authors.
  4. Editors ensure that the review process is a double-blind process. Confidentiality of all submitted materials shall be protected by the editors. Information and ideas obtained throughout the reviewing process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.     
  5. The topical editors must not attempt to require that references to certain journal articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons. Authors shall also not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles in which the editor has an interest.
  6. Papers written and submitted to the Al-Nahrain Journal of Science by the journal editors or their family members or close colleagues shall not be handled by the same editors. Any such submission must be handled by an editorial committee of three members.
  7. An editorial committee headed by the editor-in-chief or the managing editor is responsible for handling complaints against the misconduct of publication including duplication and plagiarism.

       8. The status of publication fees must not affect the editorial decision.   


Peer review is the main component of scholarly communication. Reviewers shall assist the editor in reaching a final decision regarding submitted manuscripts. They also shall assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers shall abide by the following:     

  1. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript submitted to the journal or cannot provide a prompt review should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
  2. Reviewers should treat manuscripts and all their contents with confidentiality. Data and information, including unpublished materials, must not be shared with anyone or used for personal advantage.
  3. Reviewers must report to the editor regarding any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any published paper. Such observations must be treated with appropriate citations of the original sources.   
  4. Reviewers must be aware that personal criticism of the authors and their work is inappropriate. Reviewers must present their reviews objectively and clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Potential conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors must be raised by the reviewers and reported to the journal editor(s).
  6. Reviewers’ suggestions to authors on including citations of their works must be based on scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count.