The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of the manuscript under review, and of the material that is eventually published. Conscientious peer review is a time¬-consuming task but is essential to assure the quality of scientific journals. Journal of petroleum research and studies are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.
Journal of petroleum research and studies adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript for publication are based on the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
We use a wide range of sources to identify potential reviewers, including the editorial board, personal knowledge, author suggestions, and bibliographic databases. Reviewers’ evaluations play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.
Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that:
- the manuscript is within their area of expertise.
- they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
Journal of petroleum research and studies operates a double-blind review process in which the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, and identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors.
Please consider the following points if possible:
(1) Is the manuscript within the scope of Journal of Petroleum Research and Studies and Reflects The Article?
(2) Are the data original and not yet published elsewhere?
(3) Does the abstract describe clearly the article finding?
(4) Are the Theoretical / Conception Framework / Literature Review, clearly and logically presented?
(5) Is the literature cited appropriately and comprehensively?
(6) Have the scientific names been correctly applied in nomenclature decisions? Or chemical nomenclature (please, follow this link: https://iupac.org/).
(7) Are the discussion and conclusions supported by the results?
(8) Are the tables and figures clear, all necessary, and well labelled?
(9) Are the Readability and Writing of the Paper clear and correct?
(10) Are the References written as the journal requirement?
Comments in the form of texts can be entered into comment field (comments for authors and those for editors only can be entered into two different sections. You can also upload edited files.
The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript.
Reviewers should only accept manuscript that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.
Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
- Accept as submitted
- Accept revisions
Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.
Please view the https://jprs.gov.iq/index.php/jprs/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/1 for the review process.