Iraqi Journal of Athar Al-Rafedain (AARJ) is using double-blind peer reviewing system to assure the quality of the publication. All manuscripts should be submitted through our online manuscript management system. The author should first register in our system and then submit their manuscript. We will use iThenticate to check similarities prior to sending to external reviewers. We will notify corresponding authors within one to two months about their manuscript through our online system. (AARJ) depend mostly on external reviewers in addition to the help introduce by internal reviewers.
1. Submission of Article: The corresponding or submitting author submits the article to the (AARJ). This is usually via an online system.
2. Structural Assessment: The Exudative Director checks the article's composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the article is not assessed at this point.
3. Editor-in-Chief Assessment and Processing: The Editor-in-Chief checks that the article is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the article may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Plagiarism Check up: The article at this step is tested by Ithenticate for similarity results, if it is less than 20% the article in considered to reviewer assigning, else the article rejected due to similarity results.
5. Invitation to Reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained (two accepted reviewer decision).
6. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline.
7. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the article several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further work. Otherwise, they will read the article several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. Primarily Decision: The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The reviewer's name is anonymous to the author (s).
10. Author Send Revised Manuscript: The author should do the changes that asked by the reviewer to do, and should highlight these changes in red or yellow shadow.
11- Final Decision: If accepted, the author should pay the publication fee, the article sends to page designer then to the publisher.