The Annals of the College of Medicine, Mosul (ACMM) employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality of all published articles. All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's online manuscript management system. Authors are required to register in the system prior to submission. The journal uses iThenticate® software to check for textual similarity before manuscripts are sent to reviewers. The corresponding author will be notified of the manuscript's status via the online system within one to two months.
Submission of Article: The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to ACMM through the online system.
Structural Assessment: The Executive Director verifies that the manuscript adheres to the journal's author guidelines, ensuring that all required sections and formatting specifications are included. The quality of the article is not assessed at this stage.
Editor-in-Chief Assessment and Processing: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and demonstrates sufficient originality and significance. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.
Plagiarism Check: The manuscript is screened for similarity using iThenticate®. If the similarity index is below 20%, the manuscript proceeds to review; if it is 20% or higher, the manuscript is rejected due to excessive similarity.
Invitation to Reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief invites qualified individuals to serve as reviewers. As responses are received, additional invitations are issued as necessary until two reviewers have accepted the invitation.
Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability, and subsequently accept or decline the request.
Review Conducted: The reviewers must comply with the ACMM Reviewer Guidelines. An initial manuscript evaluation is conducted to form an overall impression. If major issues are identified, the reviewer may recommend rejection without further review. Otherwise, the reviewer reads the manuscript several more times, takes detailed notes, and prepares a point-by-point critique. The review, along with a recommendation to accept, reject, or request revision (designated as either minor or major), is then submitted to the journal.
Journal Evaluation of Reviews: The Editor-in-Chief considers all returned reviews before reaching a decision. If the reviews differ substantially, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer for further input.
Initial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision letter to the author, including relevant reviewer comments. The reviewer's identity remains anonymous to the author(s).
Author Submission of Revised Manuscript: The author makes the revisions requested by the reviewers and highlights the changes in red or yellow shading.
Final Decision: If the manuscript is accepted, the author is required to pay the publication fee. The manuscript is then sent to the page designer for layout and formatting. Following the design, the corresponding author receives a proof for final review and approval. Any corrections at this stage must be limited to typographical or minor content errors. Upon approval, the article is published in the next available issue of the journal and made accessible online via the journal's open-access platform.
