Peer Review Process

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow researcher is a privilege, but it is also a time-consuming and important responsibility. The Editorial Board, authors, and readers of the Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science (WJCM) appreciate your willingness to undertake this responsibility and your commitment to maintaining high academic and scientific standards.

WJCM follows a single-blind peer-review policy, under which authors’ identities are known to reviewers, while reviewers’ identities remain confidential to the authors. Each manuscript is evaluated by two external reviewers to support a fair, objective, and rigorous assessment of its scientific quality, originality, relevance, and contribution to the journal’s scope.

The quality and reputation of WJCM depend on reviewers with appropriate subject expertise who can provide constructive, insightful, and impartial evaluations. Reviewers are expected to submit detailed reports within the deadlines established by the editorial team and to help authors improve their manuscripts through clear, professional, and evidence-based feedback.

Reviewer Assignment

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors identify and invite two independent subject-matter experts to review each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers invited by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial team of WJCM are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts critically and constructively, providing clear, detailed, and helpful comments that enable authors to improve the quality and presentation of their work.
Assess originality and scientific contribution, including the relevance of the research to the scope of WJCM, the significance of its findings, and the appropriateness of its methodology.
Evaluate the validity of the research methods and results, including the adequacy of the analysis, the interpretation of findings, and the consistency of the conclusions with the evidence presented.
Review revised versions of manuscripts when requested and assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments raised during previous rounds of review.
Submit review reports within the established deadlines and inform the editor promptly if additional time is required.
Provide a clear recommendation to the editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication, supported by objective scientific reasoning.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to the authors, the research, the funding, or the manuscript’s content before proceeding with the review.
Report suspected research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate image manipulation, or other ethical concerns, to the editor.
Avoid direct communication with the authors regarding the manuscript during the review process. All communication concerning the review should be conducted through the journal’s editorial team.
Not transfer or delegate the review assignment to another person without the editor’s prior authorization.
Inform the editor of any known concurrent submission or publication of the same or substantially similar work in another journal, where such information becomes known during the review.
Provide professional and respectful feedback, ensuring that comments are relevant, unbiased, and focused on the scientific merits of the manuscript.
Prepare the review report in English, using clear and professional academic language.

Editorial Decisions

The decision to publish, request amendments, or reject a submission is based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations. Following review, the editor issues one of four decisions:

Accept Submission: the submission is accepted without revisions.
Revisions Required: the submission is accepted after minor changes are made.
Resubmit for Review: the submission needs significant rework and may be accepted after a second round of review.
Decline Submission: the submission will not be published in the journal.

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must complete the Author Response Form, addressing each reviewer comment point by point and noting the page, paragraph, and line of every revision.

Turnaround Times

WJCM is committed to a timely publication process:

Initial screening (internal): 3–10 days
First decision (after peer review): 2–5 weeks
Final publication: 1–2 weeks after acceptance and payment of fees

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, shared with, or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research or for professional advantage without the express written consent of the authors.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers contribute directly to the integrity, credibility, and continuous improvement of WJCM as a scientific journal. The journal sincerely appreciates their expertise, time, and commitment to the advancement of research.