Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Veterinary Medicine Sciences (QJVMS) has a policy of double-blind peer-review. This method confirms the highest possible standard of the workflow review atmosphere. The QJVMS online manuscript submission system is the preferred method by which to submit all of your manuscripts. First, Turnitin is utilized for plagiarism and AI checking. Then, each manuscript sent for review is examined by a specialist editor. Then, based on the compliance of the manuscript with the standards and schedules of QJVMS, the editor-in-chief of QJVMS assigns initially accepted manuscript to two external reviewers, who are not from the author's institute nor of the QJVMS Editorial Board. The corresponding author/s will be notified within 4-8 weeks if the manuscript is accepted or rejected using the QJVMS online system. Due to the fact that the review process depends on external reviewers, QJVMS is inviting authors to nominate reviewers in this stage. However, choosing reviewers will only be made if reviewers under the QJVMS standards. The editorial board members - despite being non-peer-reviewers - will be significantly involved in choosing reviewers based on specialty and scholastic importance. The following flow chart represents the process.

• Submission of Manuscript: The author of the article submits the article to the QJVMS via the journal online system.
• Initial examination of article structure: The Exudative Director judges the organization of the article in accordance with the Author Guidelines of QJVMS.
• Editor-in-Chief Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the article, and if deemed appropriate, the manuscript will be assigned to an editor with similar to the field of the submitted paper for initial review.
• Plagiarism and AI examination: The article is subject to similarity testing using Turnitin. If the similarity percentage is less than 20%, the article is sent out to reviewers, however, if the percentage of similarity is higher than 20%, the article is rejected for publication due to high similarity.
• Invitations by the Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief formally invites whoever he/she believes that they would be an appropriate reviewer. The request is sent out, and if there are no responses, repeated invitations are sent until two reviewers accept to carry out the review process. They will decide whether to accept or decline based on their own areas of expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability.
• Review is Done: The reviewer devotes time to carefully read the article at least once and perhaps more. The first reading is done to begin acquiring an opinion about the paper. If major problems are detected at this stage, the reviewer might readily reject the article without doing more work. Otherwise, he/she will reread the article one or more times, annotating their reading to create a total and systematic critique. Then, he/she will send the complete review to the journal, with a recommendation that it either be accepted, rejected, or revised. The recommendation for revision is usually called major or minor, and the review is recirculated after the revisions are done.
• Decision after all reviews received: The Editor-in-Chief is the person who makes the final decision on all the reviews received. If the reviews have major differences, in some cases, the editor will request an additional reviewer to get an extra perspective prior to making a decision.
• Decision and Recommendations: Editor-in-Chief sends the author a notification informing them of the decision along with any relevant reviewer comments. Authors are not informed of the identity of the reviewers.
• Author Revised Manuscript: Author is asked to incorporate the reviewer suggested changes in the submitted paper and highlight those changes in red or yellow.
• Final Decision: After receiving revisions and the proofs, the authors should pay the publication fees, and then it will be sent to the Page Designer, before it is published.