Peer Review Policy
The Peer Review Process
Double -Blind peer Review Guidelines
Kerbala Journal for Engineering Sciences (KJES) adopts a double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, objectivity, and academic integrity.
All submitted manuscripts undergo the following stages:
- Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial office evaluates submissions for scope relevance, originality, language quality, formatting, and compliance with ethical standards. - Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with similarity above acceptable limits are rejected. - Double-Blind Review
Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers, where both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous. - Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
- Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts undergo final technical checks before publication.
The journal ensures fairness, confidentiality, and transparency throughout the review process.
Double-Blind Peer Review Guidelines
Reviewers are expected to:
- Evaluate originality, methodology, clarity, and relevance.
- Provide constructive and unbiased feedback.
- Maintain confidentiality.
- Declare any conflict of interest.
Karbala Journal for Engineering Science (KJES) is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. All submitted manuscripts will be initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for KJES. If the Editor-in-Chief determines the article to be in need of further revision prior to full peer review (e.g., additional references needed, structurally unclear, inadequate quality of writing, assistance with English needed, etc.), the manuscript will be returned to the author with an assessment of strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for revisions. Manuscripts are rejected by the editors at this stage if they are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, need extensive improvement in the language, or do not fall within the aims and scope of the journal.
Manuscripts deemed suitable are sent to a minimum of two external peer reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. Reviewers should have sufficient expertise and qualifications to judge the content of the article and that they have no conflicts of interest. The selection of peer reviewers is made by the article handling editor (the Editor-in-Chief or the specialist editor). Authors are requested to suggest reviewers but the editors reserve the right of the final selection.
This journal operates double -Blind review process (the names and information of the reviewers are hidden from the author). After completing all reviewers' reports, the handling editor makes a decision (accept, major revision, minor revision or reject) based on the reviewers' reports, and authors are sent these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected. Editors or board members are never involved in editorial decisions about their own work and in these cases papers may be referred to other editors or the Editor-in-Chief.
The authors receive up to 2 weeks to prepare the revision depending on the reviewers' comments. Any revisions should be clearly highlighted, for example using the font in color, so that they are easily visible to the editors and reviewers. The authors should provide a response to reviewers' comments detailing any changes, for the benefit of the editors and reviewers. The revisions that have been made should be detailed citing the line number and exact change so that the editor can check the changes expeditiously. Revisions that do not meet these requirements will be sent back to authors with requests for corrections and resubmission. Some articles may have two or three rounds of peer review.