Peer Review

Description 

JFU uses double-anonymous peer review for original research articles. Authors and reviewers are not informed of one another’s identities. Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed when authors have disseminated preprints, datasets, conference materials, or distinctive self-citations. 

Peer review supports editorial judgment but does not transfer decision authority from the journal. JFU seeks expert, constructive, confidential, timely, and independent evaluation. 

Policy 

  1. Each research manuscript that passes editorial screening will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. 
  2. Editors assess scope, originality, methodological and analytical soundness, reporting quality, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to physics. Decisions must not be based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political belief, institutional prestige, or ability to pay an APC. 
  3. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose competing interests, assess only within their competence, provide objective and constructive comments, and refrain from using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage. 
  4. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, or reviews to public or third-party generative-AI services that do not provide adequate confidentiality, security, and data-use protection. 
  5. Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers, with reasons, but the journal independently selects and verifies reviewers and is not bound by author requests. 
  6. Editors may reject a manuscript without external review when it is outside scope, incomplete, seriously deficient, unethical, duplicative, or clearly below the journal’s threshold. 
  7. The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated non-conflicted editor makes the final decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. 
  8. Submissions by editors, Board members, or close institutional colleagues are handled independently, with recusal and restricted access. 
  9. JFU aims to complete peer review within the timeline stated on its website. Times are targets, not guarantees, and authors will be informed of material delays. 
  10. Appeals follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy. Suspected reviewer or peer-review manipulation follows the Misconduct Policy. 

Technical Operational Steps 

  1. The Journal Office performs checks for completeness, scope, formatting, declarations, similarity concerns, authorship, ethics, and required files. 
  2. The Editor-in-Chief assigns a non-conflicted handling editor, who records any recusal or special management arrangement. 
  3. The handling editor selects reviewers after checking expertise, identity, email domain, publication record, institutional relationship, and potential conflicts. 
  4. Reviewers accept the confidentiality, conflict, responsible-AI, and ethical-review conditions before accessing the manuscript. 
  5. At least two independent reports are sought unless the editor documents a justified exception, such as a specialist method for which qualified reviewers are exceptionally limited. 
  6. Reviewers provide comments for authors, confidential comments to the editor when necessary, and a recommendation of accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. 
  7. The handling editor evaluates the reports for quality, bias, inappropriate language, unsupported demands, citation coercion, and consistency. Improper content is removed or addressed before transmission. 
  8. Authors receive a decision letter and relevant anonymized comments. A revision must include a point-by-point response and clearly identifiable changes. 
  9. The editor determines whether a revision requires return to the original reviewers, new reviewers, or editorial assessment. 
  10. When review integrity is compromised, JFU may cancel the review, appoint replacement reviewers, reconsider a decision, or investigate under the Misconduct Policy.