Review Process

The Kurdistan Journal of Applied Research process is a "double-blind peer-review". All submitted manuscripts will be initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief to determine if they are suitable for publication. If the article requires further revisions before undergoing a full peer review, such as the need for additional references, unclear structure, poor writing quality, or English assistance, the manuscript will be returned to the author. The author will receive feedback on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, along with suggestions for revisions. Manuscripts may be rejected by the editors if they lack originality, contain major scientific flaws, require significant language improvements, or fall outside the journal's scope.

After passing the initial evaluation, manuscripts are sent to at least two external peer reviewers who are qualified and knowledgeable enough to assess the paper's scientific quality. A double-blind review is applied, and the reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest. This rigorous review process is designed to provide constructive feedback and ensure the manuscript's contributions are significant, original, and clearly articulated. In cases where the initial two reviewers' recommendations conflict, or if one reviewer suggests rejection while the other sees potential for publication, the manuscript will undergo a further review by a third independent expert. This step is to ensure a fair and balanced evaluation, taking into consideration diverse expert opinions on the manuscript's quality and relevance to the field.

The handling editor will decide on the manuscript (whether to accept, reject, or request revisions - either major or minor) after reviewing all the reports submitted by the reviewers. The editorial decision, along with the reviewers' reports, will be sent to the authors. The editorial decision on a manuscript is made independently, and editors or board members are not involved in the decision-making process for their work.

Authors will have up to four weeks to make revisions based on the reviewers' comments; otherwise, the manuscript will be withdrawn automatically.

A manuscript returned more than one month later will generally be regarded as newly submitted and will be given a new receipt date with a new round of review.

To ensure that revisions are easily identifiable, authors should use highlighting techniques such as colored fonts. In addition, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and provide a detailed account of the changes made, including specific line numbers and modifications. If the revisions do not meet the requirements, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for further correction and resubmission. Some articles may undergo multiple rounds of peer review.

On average, the submission-to-first-decision time is approximately six weeks, while the submission-to-final-decision time is approximately ten weeks.

Upon acceptance, the manuscript will go through technical copy editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, correction, pagination, and publication. 

Authors can appeal a rejection decision by contacting the Editor in Chief within two months of the decision date. The appeal should include a detailed justification and a point-by-point response to the reviewers. The appeal will be handed to a designated editorial team member and provide an advisory recommendation of acceptance, further peer review, or rejection. The Editor in Chief will make the final decision, and it cannot be reversed.