Editorial and peer review process
The journal uses single-blind peer review. When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it is screened by the Editorial Office for the basic technical requirements. It is then assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, who performs an initial screening. Manuscripts that do not fit the technical requirements, journal’s scope or are not deemed suitable for publication are rejected without review. Proceedings summaries are screened for suitability, but not sent to peer reviewers. The remaining manuscripts are assigned to an Editor who assigns two reviewers to assess each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation and previous experience as peer reviewers. The deadline for submission of the reviewers’ reports varies by article type.
Upon receipt of the two reviewers’ reports, the Editor makes the first decision on the manuscript. If the decision is to request revision of the manuscript, authors have 2 months to resubmit their revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts submitted after this deadline may be treated as new submissions. The Editor may send revised manuscripts to peer reviewers for their feedback or may use his or her own judgement to assess how closely the authors have followed the Editor’s and the reviewers’ comments on the original manuscript.
The Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision.
The members of the Editorial Board act in advisory roles, providing feedback as reviewers and making suggestions to improve the journal. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author on a manuscript submitted to the journal, a member of the Editorial Board is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal. Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process.
Reviewer selection, timing and suggestions
Reviewers are selected without regard to geography and need not belong to the journal’s Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal.
Reviewers are invited within 2 weeks of an article being submitted. Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor’s sole discretion.
Reviewer reports
It is the journal’s policy to transmit reviewers’ comments to the authors in their original form. However, the journal reserves the right to edit reviewers’ comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive language, confidential information or recommendations for publication.
Acceptance criteria
If a manuscript satisfies the journal’s requirements and represents a significant contribution to the published literature, the Editor may recommend acceptance for publication in the journal.
Articles in JPFSM must be:
- within the subject area of the journal’s scope
- novel and original
- descriptions of technically rigorous research
- of high interest to the journal’s audience
- important additions to the field.
If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, the Editor may recommend rejection.
Editorial independence
As the journal owner, the JSPFSM has granted the journal’s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. The JSPFSM will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.
Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript’s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal’s other interests. The authors’ ability to pay any publication charges has no bearing on whether a manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal.
Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been made in error may lodge an appeal with the Editorial Office. Appeals are only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor. Appeals are considered carefully by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed where and when relevant.
Editor confidentiality in peer review
The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors will not:
- disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure
- discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review
- use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
- use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.
Conflicts of interest in peer review
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor’s or reviewer’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.
Members of the journal’s Editorial Board undertake to avoid or declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias. An editor who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest to the Editor, who will determine the best course of action.
Errata and retractions
The journal recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of published literature.
A published article that contains an error may be corrected through the publication of an Erratum. Errata describe errors that significantly affect the scientific integrity of a publication, the reputation of the authors, or the journal itself. Authors who wish to correct a published article should contact the editor who handled their manuscript or the Editorial Office with full details of the error(s) and their requested changes. In cases where co-authors disagree over a correction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Correction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.
A published article that contains invalid or unreliable results or conclusions, has been published elsewhere, or has infringed codes of conduct (covering research or publication ethics) may be retracted. Individuals who believe that a published article should be retracted are encouraged to contact the journal’s Editorial Office with full details of their concerns. The Editor-in-Chief will investigate further and contact the authors of the published article for their response. In cases where co-authors disagree over a retraction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Retraction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.
The decision to publish Errata or Retractions is made at the sole discretion of the Editor-in- Chief.
Responding to potential ethical breaches
The journal will respond to allegations of ethical breaches by following its own policies and, where possible, the guidelines of COPE.
Reviewer Confidentiality
As part of their responsibilities, reviewers agree to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts at all times. By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers agree not to:
- disclose their role in reviewing the manuscript
- reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript
- discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved in the review process
- involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or PhD student) without first requesting permission from the Editor
- use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
- use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.
