Peer Review Process
This page describes how JIFSAM reviews manuscripts: the model, the stages, the time each stage should take, how reviewers are chosen, the possible decisions, and how to appeal.
1. Review model
JIFSAM uses double-blind review. Authors and reviewers do not learn each other's identity. Authors submit an anonymised manuscript, with names, affiliations, acknowledgements and self-identifying references removed, together with a separate title page.
Each manuscript that passes the editorial check receives at least two independent external reviews. A third review is sought when the first two disagree substantially.
Manuscripts by editors or active reviewers follow the extra safeguards on the Editorial Independence page.
2. Stages
- Editorial check. The handling editor checks scope, completeness, ethics statements, anonymisation and language.
- Similarity check. The manuscript is screened with iThenticate. See the Plagiarism Policy.
- Desk decision. The manuscript is either sent for review or returned to the authors with reasons.
- Reviewer invitation. The editor invites reviewers from the journal's pool and from experts identified through the reference list and literature searches.
- Review. Reviewers have three weeks from accepting the invitation. They complete a structured form covering scope, originality, method, results, discussion and ethics, with comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor.
- Decision. The editor weighs the reviews and makes one of the decisions in section 5.
- Revision. Revised manuscripts go back to the original reviewers where possible.
- Production. Accepted manuscripts move to copyediting, typesetting, proofs and publication.
3. Target times
| Stage | Target |
|---|---|
| Desk decision | Within 2 weeks of submission |
| First decision after peer review | Within 6 to 8 weeks of submission |
| Final decision | Within 12 weeks of submission |
These are targets, not promises for any one paper. Time spent by authors on revisions is not counted. As a new journal, JIFSAM will publish actual median times once it has enough data.
4. Choosing reviewers
- Reviewers are chosen for subject expertise and methodological fit, and must have no conflict with the authors.
- Authors may suggest reviewers. The editor checks their independence and is free not to use them.
- Reviewers from an author's own institution are never invited.
- A reviewer who has reviewed a closely related paper by the same authors in the past 12 months is not invited unless no one else has the expertise.
Researchers who would like to review can apply as described in the Reviewer Guidelines.
5. Decisions
- Accept. Published as submitted, subject to copyediting. This is rare at the first round.
- Minor revisions. Small changes the editor can check without further review. Authors have 4 weeks.
- Major revisions. Substantial changes that go back to the reviewers. Authors have 8 weeks. The revision continues the original submission.
- Reject and resubmit. Not acceptable now, but a substantially reworked version would be considered as a new submission.
- Reject. The decision letter gives the reasons.
6. Conflicts of interest
Reviewers must decline if they have a conflict with the authors, and editors withdraw from manuscripts where they have one. The recusal is recorded in the OJS workflow and the Editor-in-Chief assigns another editor. See the Conflict of Interest page.
7. Appeals
Authors who believe a rejection was based on a procedural error or a factual misreading by reviewers may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief through the Contact page. The appeal must answer each reviewer's main points. The Editor-in-Chief may consult another editor or seek a further review, and aims to reply within four weeks. The appeal decision is final. An appeal that only disputes the reviewers' scholarly judgement will be declined.
8. Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers and editors may not share them or use them for any purpose other than the review, and may not upload any part of a manuscript to generative AI tools or other external services.
9. Recognition
Reviewers receive a certificate of reviewing on request and, if they opt in, recognition on their ORCID record.
