Peer review is the cornerstone of the scientific publishing process. The Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) relies heavily on the expertise, objectivity, and dedication of its reviewers to ensure that only research of the highest quality is published.
We extend our deepest gratitude to researchers who volunteer their time to evaluate submissions.
Accessing Manuscripts via Editorial Manager
IJEIR utilizes the Editorial Manager system for all peer-review activities.
- When invited to review a manuscript, you will receive an email containing the article title, abstract, and links to Accept or Decline the invitation.
- If you accept, you will be granted access to the anonymized manuscript files through your Reviewer Dashboard: Editorial Manager.
Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics
By accepting an invitation to review, you agree to adhere to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
- Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. You must not discuss it with anyone, share its contents, or use the data for your own research prior to publication.
- Conflicts of Interest: If you realize you have a competing financial, personal, or professional interest regarding the research (or if you can identify the authors despite the double-blind process), you must immediately notify the Editor and recuse yourself from the review.
- Timeliness: Please complete your review within the timeframe requested in the invitation email (usually 2-3 weeks). If you require an extension, contact the Editorial Office promptly.
- Objectivity and Professionalism: Your evaluation should focus entirely on the scientific merit of the work. Personal attacks or derogatory language are strictly prohibited.
Structure of a Good Review
A constructive review provides clear, actionable feedback to both the authors and the Editor. Your report in the Editorial Manager system should typically include:
- Summary: A brief paragraph summarizing the core aim and main findings of the paper to demonstrate your understanding of the work.
- Major Comments: Address fundamental flaws in the methodology, experimental design, data interpretation, or ethical concerns. Indicate if the conclusions are not supported by the data.
- Minor Comments: Address specific issues such as missing references, unclear phrasing, typographical errors, or formatting issues in tables/figures.
Making a Recommendation
At the conclusion of your review, you will be asked to make a confidential recommendation to the Editor:
- Accept: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Minor Revisions: The paper will be acceptable after the authors address minor textual corrections or clarifications.
- Major Revisions: The paper requires significant methodological explanations, re-analysis of data, or structural changes before it can be considered for publication.
- Reject: The paper is fundamentally flawed, lacks originality, or falls outside the journal's scope.
(Note: The final decision to accept or reject rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, who considers the reports of multiple reviewers).