Editors Hub

Editor’s in-house primary check

Once you are assigned to handle a submission by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor or Journal Manager you should check the following:

  • The novelty of the submitted work (moderately to highly novel works only can be processed)
  • The rationale of the study
  • The soundness of the methodology (study design, methods, and statistical analysis)
  • The consistency of the results
  • The conclusions (are conclusions data-based)

If the manuscript is accepted based on the above-mentioned criteria, it then should be sent to external reviewers.


Inviting reviewers

Once you decide to invite external reviewers, the below-listed points should be considered:

  • The manuscript should be blinded (without authors’ details)
  • Reviewers should not be from the same affiliation as the authors
  • Reviewer’s details needed are (First and Last name, E-mail address (institutional is preferred), Full affiliation (Dept., Faculty, University, City, Country), Reviewing interests
  • Reviewers’ diversity is highly appreciated (the reviewers must be from different countries)


Evaluating reviewers’ comments

Once the required number of reviews is completed, your first decision is now required. Please, consider the below-mentioned points too:

  • Read the comments and evaluate them based on your expertise
  • If the comments are not within the manuscript file, make them in one letter and mark each reviewer as anonymous (Reviewer #1, Reviewer #2, Reviewer #3, ..etc.)
  • If the comments are within the manuscript file, ensure that the reviewer’s info is removed from the reviewed file


Recommend a decision

Once the reviews and your own remarks become ready to be released to authors, add a new discussion with the title “Editor’s Decision” and participate it with each of the Managing Editor (Prof. Dr. Omar Abdul-Rasheed) and the Journal Manager. Then, the Journal Manager will release an Editor’s Decision to Authors signed with the Editor’s Name.

The Editor’s Decision can be:

  • Accept

                - If the manuscript contains a high priority content with no mistakes or missing
                - If the reviewers’ comments are correctly addressed and no further revisions are required by the Editor

  • Major Revisions Required

                - If the reviewers suggested comprehensive corrections
                - If additional work is requested

  • Minor Revisions Required

                - If just a few and minor points need to be addressed

  • Reject

              - If the manuscript was “out-of-scope”
              - If the manuscript contains a high similarity index (i.e. plagiarized)
              - If the manuscript is “original research” or “short communication” with an unsound methodology or biased conclusions


 After uploading revisions (review rounds)

  • When the manuscript is reviewed by external reviewers, this will be the "First Review Round"
  • When the manuscript is revised and resubmitted by authors, it:

              - will be evaluated by the Handling Editor first and then it will be reviewed for a second time "Second Review Round" by the previous external reviewers and the editor [For manuscripts whose first decision is "Major Revisions Required"]

              - evaluated by the Handling Editor first and when all reviewers' comments are carefully addressed, the Handling Editor can recommend it for acceptance by the EiC or re-send it for a "Third Round Review" [For manuscripts whose first decision is "Minor Revisions Required"]

  • When the revisions are sent to external reviewers and they recommend further revisions, the decision should be processed as presented previously as “Accept”, “Major Revisions”, “Minor Revisions”, or “Accept”.


Get your editor’s record verified

Once the Editor’s Decision is released by the Journal Manager to authors, you will receive a bcc of the decision email. The email can be forwarded to [email protected] to verify the editor’s record.



Editorial Office
Baghdad Journal of Biochemistry and Applied Biological Sciences