Reviewers Guidelines

AL-Qadisiyah Journal of Biotechnology (QJBT)

Published by the College of Biotechnology, University of Al-Qadisiyah, Iraq  •  qjbt.qu.edu.iq

Peer review is the mechanism by which QJBT safeguards the quality, originality, and integrity of everything it publishes. Reviewers act on behalf of the scientific community and the journal's readers, not on behalf of the author or the editor. A thorough, fair, and timely review directly determines whether QJBT can be trusted as a scholarly record — this is especially important while the journal builds its publication history and works toward indexing and ISSN registration.

QJBT operates a double-blind review process: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This applies at every stage, including in written comments.

2.1 Reviewer qualifications

•     A relevant postgraduate qualification (typically PhD or equivalent research experience) in biotechnology or a closely related discipline.

•     A record of published research, and where possible, prior reviewing experience.

•     Subject-matter expertise matching the manuscript's specific topic, not just its general field.

2.2 Responding to an invitation

•     Reviewers should respond to an invitation within [3 days], accepting only if they have the relevant expertise, sufficient time, and no conflict of interest.

•     If unable to review, reviewers are encouraged to suggest an alternative qualified reviewer.

•     Accepting an invitation is a commitment to deliver a complete, substantive review by the agreed deadline.

•     Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to anyone outside the review process, including colleagues or students, without the editor's prior permission.

•     Reviewers must not use knowledge of the unpublished work — its data, methods, or conclusions — to advance their own research or interests.

•     Manuscripts and all associated materials should be deleted or destroyed once the review is complete, unless the journal's workflow requires retention.

•     Reviewers must not use generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to analyze or summarize a manuscript under review, as this would disclose confidential, unpublished content to a third-party system.

Reviewers must decline an invitation, or disclose the conflict to the editor and let the editor decide, if any of the following apply:

•     They are a co-author, close collaborator, or family member of one of the manuscript's authors.

•     They are currently at the same institution as any author, or have been within the past [3 years].

•     They have a financial interest in the outcome of the study (e.g., a competing product, a funding relationship).

•     They have a strong personal or professional rivalry with an author that could affect their objectivity.

•     They were involved in an earlier version of the same study or manuscript.

 

 

Criterion	Guiding questions
Originality and significance	Does the work add new knowledge? Is it significant enough to merit publication in QJBT's scope?
Scientific/technical soundness	Are the hypotheses, study design, and methods appropriate and correctly executed?
Data and analysis	Are the results presented completely, accurately, and analyzed with appropriate statistical or computational methods?
Interpretation	Are the conclusions justified by the data, and do they avoid overstatement?
Literature and referencing	Is prior relevant work adequately and accurately cited? Are references current and appropriate?
Clarity and structure	Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and does it follow the IMRaD structure required by the Author Guidelines?
Ethics compliance	Where applicable, is there a clear statement of ethical approval (human, animal, or biosafety-regulated research) and informed consent?
Tables and figures	Are they necessary, correctly labeled, and do they accurately represent the underlying data?
Reproducibility	Is there sufficient methodological detail for another researcher to replicate the study?

If a reviewer suspects any of the following, they should not make the accusation directly to the authors, but should flag it clearly and confidentially to the editor with specific supporting detail:

•     Plagiarism, including close paraphrasing of another source without attribution.

•     Data fabrication or falsification, or image manipulation beyond standard adjustments (e.g., brightness/contrast applied uniformly).

•     Redundant or duplicate publication of the same data or findings in another venue.

•     Undisclosed conflicts of interest or an authorship dispute.

•     Ethical concerns about the research itself, such as missing approvals for human, animal, or biosafety-regulated work.

7.1 Structure of a helpful review

1.      A brief summary of the manuscript in the reviewer's own words, confirming they understood its aim and approach.

2.      Major comments: substantive issues affecting the validity, significance, or clarity of the work, each specific and actionable.

3.      Minor comments: smaller issues such as wording, labeling, or presentation, ideally keyed to page/line numbers.

4.      Confidential comments to the editor (optional): concerns not appropriate to share with the authors, such as suspected misconduct.

7.2 Recommendation categories

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is scientifically sound and well presented; only trivial or no changes are needed
Minor Revision	The core work is sound; revisions are limited to clarifications, additional detail, or presentation issues
Major Revision	The work has merit but requires substantial additional analysis, data, or restructuring before it can be assessed again
Reject	The manuscript has fundamental flaws in originality, soundness, or ethics that cannot be resolved through revision

•     Reviewers are asked to complete their review within [X days/weeks] of accepting the invitation.

•     If a reviewer anticipates a delay, they should notify the editorial office as early as possible rather than submitting a late or rushed review.

•     Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline after accepting should inform the editor promptly so an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

•     The editor may request clarification on specific points of a review before making a decision.

•     Where reviewers disagree, the editor may invite a third reviewer or make an independent editorial judgment; the reviewer's role ends at the recommendation stage — final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

•     Reviewers may be asked to assess a revised version of the manuscript to confirm their comments were addressed.

•     QJBT acknowledges reviewer contributions [annually / per issue / via a reviewer certificate] as a record of service to the journal.

By accepting a review invitation, a reviewer agrees to:

•     Provide an honest, evidence-based, and constructive assessment, free of personal bias.

•     Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process at all times.

•     Disclose any conflict of interest before beginning the review.

•     Meet the agreed deadline or notify the editor promptly if unable to do so.

•     Avoid using unpublished manuscript content for personal benefit.

•     Raise ethical concerns with the editor rather than resolving them unilaterally.

For questions about the review process, an invitation, or to report a concern, contact the QJBT editorial office at [journal email address] or the Principal Contact, Dr. Omar Harran.