The Kirkuk Journal of Medical Sciences (KJMS) follows a double-blind peer-review system to ensure the quality and integrity of its publications. Authors are required to submit their manuscripts through the online manuscript management system, where they must first register before proceeding with the submission process. Before assigning reviewers, iThenticate is used to screen submissions for similarity. The corresponding author is typically notified about the manuscript’s status within one to two months via the online system. While KJMS primarily relies on external reviewers, internal reviewers may also contribute to the review process.
The peer review process begins when an author registers and submits their manuscript through the journal’s online submission system. This marks the first step in a thorough and structured editorial journey.
Once a manuscript is submitted, the Managing Editor conducts the initial structural assessment. This includes checking for compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines, ensuring that all required sections are present, formatting standards are met, and that essential documents—such as ethical approval, conflict of interest declarations, and other mandatory statements—are properly submitted. If any element is missing or non-compliant, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction.
After passing the structural check, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) performs a similarity check using iThenticate software to evaluate the manuscript’s originality. If the similarity index is below 20%, the manuscript proceeds. If it equals or exceeds 20%, indicating significant overlap with existing literature, it is rejected without further review.
Following these checks, the Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript for fit within the journal’s scope, as well as for scientific merit and originality. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are desk rejected. Those that meet the necessary criteria are advanced to the peer review stage, where the Editor-in-Chief invites at least two qualified reviewers, one internal (a member of the editorial board, academic institution, or publishing organization) and one external (an independent expert or senior academic with no affiliation to the journal’s institution or publisher). Once both reviewers accept the invitation, the manuscript advances to the critical peer review stage.
During the peer review, each reviewer thoroughly evaluates the manuscript’s originality, methodology, relevance, and contribution to the field. They then submit detailed feedback, along with a recommendation—whether to accept, request minor or major revisions, or reject the manuscript.
The EIC carefully considers all reviewer reports. In cases where reviewer opinions significantly differ, a third reviewer may be consulted to reach a balanced judgment.
Once a consensus is reached, the editorial decision is communicated to the author, accompanied by anonymous reviewer comments to guide any necessary revisions.
If revisions are requested, the author is given an opportunity to revise the manuscript accordingly. All changes should be clearly marked, typically in red or yellow, and the revised version is then resubmitted through the same system.
The EIC reviews the revised manuscript. If the changes satisfactorily address the reviewers’ and editorial concerns, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Finally, the accepted manuscript enters the production stage, where it is professionally formatted, paginated, and published—completing its journey from submission to scholarly contribution.