Peer Review Policy

Description

Jurnal Fisika Unand (JFU) applies double-anonymous peer review to Original Research Articles. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an author’s identity can be inferred from preprints, datasets, repositories, conference materials, institutional projects, distinctive methods, or self-identifying citations. Authors and reviewers must not deliberately attempt to discover or disclose one another’s identities.

Peer review supports the journal’s assessment of:

• scientific quality;
• originality and significance;
• methodological and analytical soundness;
• reporting clarity;
• ethical compliance;
• reproducibility; and
• contribution to physics and related interdisciplinary fields.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace independent editorial judgment. Final responsibility for an editorial decision remains with the designated non-conflicted editor.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, and all Original Research Articles submitted to JFU. Special issues and guest-edited collections are subject to the same standards as regular submissions.

JFU develops its peer-review procedures with reference to the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively and constructively, protect confidentiality, disclose competing interests, avoid misuse of unpublished information, and complete reviews within the agreed period.

Reference to COPE guidance does not constitute a statement that JFU is a COPE member unless such membership is separately confirmed and publicly verifiable.

Policy

1. Initial Technical Screening

Every submission undergoes an initial technical screening by the Journal Office.

The screening may include:

1. completeness of the submission;
2. compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
3. completeness and consistency of metadata;
4. suitability of the submitted file format;
5. manuscript length;
6. anonymization of the review file;
7. authorship and contribution information;
8. competing-interest and funding declarations;
9. Data Availability Statement;
10. ethics, consent, permit, and safety information where applicable;
11. generative AI declaration;
12. permission for third-party material;
13. disclosure of preprints and other prior dissemination; and
14. similarity-screening results and other preliminary integrity concerns.

A manuscript that does not satisfy the technical requirements may be returned to the corresponding author for correction.

Technical screening does not constitute acceptance for peer review or publication.

2. Editorial Screening

After technical screening, the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated handling editor assesses:

1. relevance to the JFU aims, focus, and scope;
2. suitability of the article type;
3. originality and scientific contribution;
4. methodological and analytical adequacy;
5. clarity and completeness of reporting;
6. compliance with research-ethics and publication-ethics requirements;
7. availability of information required for scientific assessment;
8. potential data, image, authorship, citation, or integrity concerns; and
9. readiness for external peer review.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is:

• outside the journal’s scope;
• incomplete or substantially inconsistent with the Author Guidelines;
• methodologically or analytically inadequate;
• insufficiently original or scientifically developed;
• based on claims not adequately supported by evidence;
• affected by unresolved ethical or integrity concerns;
• substantially duplicative of earlier work without appropriate disclosure or justification; or
• clearly below the journal’s editorial threshold.

A decision not to send a manuscript for external review will be communicated to the corresponding author with an appropriate explanation.

3. Reviewer Selection

A manuscript that passes editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

1. expertise relevant to the manuscript;
2. research or professional experience;
3. ability to evaluate the reported methods and claims;
4. independence from the authors and research;
5. absence of disqualifying competing interests;
6. ability to complete the review within the requested period;
7. quality and reliability of previous reviews, where applicable; and
8. accurate and verifiable professional information.

The handling editor takes reasonable steps to verify a reviewer’s identity and expertise. Verification may include:

• institutional affiliation;
• institutional email address;
• ORCID record;
• publication history;
• professional or institutional profile; and
• previous editorial experience.

JFU does not permit reviewer impersonation, fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, or manipulation of reviewer selection.

4. Author-Suggested and Opposed Reviewers

Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or identify persons whom they believe should not review the manuscript.

Reviewer suggestions and opposition requests are advisory. JFU is not required to invite a suggested reviewer or exclude an opposed reviewer.

The editor independently verifies a suggested reviewer’s:

1. identity;
2. professional contact information;
3. expertise;
4. independence; and
5. competing interests.

Authors must not recommend fabricated identities, undisclosed close collaborators, personal associates, or persons selected through an arrangement intended to manipulate peer review.

Suspected reviewer-suggestion manipulation is handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

5. Reviewer Competing Interests

Before accepting an assignment, reviewers must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.

A reviewer should decline the assignment or seek advice from the editor when the reviewer:

• has a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
• is a recent co-author, collaborator, supervisor, or student of an author;
• is affiliated with the same department, laboratory, or research group as an author;
• has a relevant financial interest;
• is involved in a direct academic, commercial, personal, or legal dispute with an author;
• participated in the research or manuscript preparation;
• cannot provide an independent assessment; or
• has another relationship that could compromise or appear to compromise objectivity.

Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a reviewer. The handling editor determines whether the interest can be managed or requires reviewer replacement.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

1. accept assignments only within their areas of competence;
2. provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments;
3. evaluate manuscripts fairly and without improper discrimination;
4. protect confidentiality;
5. disclose relevant competing interests;
6. avoid personal criticism, hostile language, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations;
7. distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
8. avoid citation coercion;
9. identify material methodological, analytical, reporting, ethical, data, image, or integrity concerns;
10. avoid using unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, financial, or competitive advantage;
11. avoid direct communication with the authors;
12. provide accurate identity, affiliation, and expertise information;
13. identify any authorized person who contributed to the review; and
14. complete the review within the agreed period or promptly request an extension.

Reviewer comments should focus on the scientific content and should not attempt to rewrite a manuscript according to personal stylistic preferences.

A reviewer who identifies a possible integrity concern should report it confidentially to the editor and provide relevant evidence where available. Reviewers must not independently investigate or publicly accuse the authors.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, data, figures, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, editorial comments, and correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

1. share a manuscript or review without prior editorial permission;
2. disclose information about the manuscript before publication;
3. use unpublished information for personal or third-party benefit;
4. retain or distribute files beyond what is necessary for the review;
5. contact the authors directly; or
6. deliberately attempt to discover the authors’ identities.

If assistance from a colleague or trainee is required, the reviewer must obtain permission from the editor before sharing any material. Every authorized contributor must be identified to the editor and must comply with the same confidentiality, competing-interest, and ethical requirements.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review.

8. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, abstracts, figures, tables, data, supplementary files, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to public or third-party generative AI systems that do not provide adequate confidentiality, security, intellectual-property protection, and data-use controls.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer’s scholarly judgment or critical assessment.

A reviewer must not submit a substantially AI-generated review as the reviewer’s own evaluation.

If JFU authorizes an institutionally or journal-approved AI system for a defined review purpose, the reviewer must:

1. comply with the journal’s instructions;
2. disclose the use of the system to the editor;
3. verify all generated output;
4. ensure that the review represents the reviewer’s independent assessment; and
5. accept full responsibility for every substantive comment.

Inappropriate or undisclosed AI use may result in rejection of the review, reviewer replacement, removal from the reviewer database, reconsideration of an editorial decision, institutional notification where appropriate, or action under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

9. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript:

1. falls within the journal’s scope;
2. addresses a clear and relevant research question;
3. presents an original or meaningful scientific contribution;
4. uses appropriate theoretical, computational, experimental, or analytical methods;
5. describes methods sufficiently for scientific assessment and reasonable replication;
6. reports instruments, software, models, calibration, uncertainty, and analytical decisions appropriately;
7. presents results accurately and clearly;
8. supports conclusions with the reported evidence;
9. discusses limitations and uncertainty;
10. uses figures, tables, images, and supplementary materials appropriately;
11. cites relevant literature accurately and fairly;
12. complies with ethics, consent, privacy, permit, and safety requirements;
13. provides appropriate data, code, and materials information;
14. shows no apparent fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deceptive manipulation, or duplicate publication; and
15. is written clearly enough for its scientific content to be evaluated.

A manuscript should not be rejected solely because it requires language improvement when its scientific content can be adequately assessed.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: Limited clarification or correction is required.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes, analysis, explanation, reporting, or evidence are required.
• Reject: Fundamental problems cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, or the manuscript does not satisfy the journal’s scope or publication standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

Reviewers should provide clear reasons consistent with their comments to the authors and any confidential comments submitted to the editor.

11. Editorial Decisions

The designated non-conflicted editor makes the decision after considering:

1. the manuscript;
2. reviewer reports;
3. the relevance and quality of the reviews;
4. author responses and revisions;
5. ethical and integrity requirements;
6. applicable journal policies; and
7. the complete editorial record.

The editor may:

• accept the manuscript;
• request minor revision;
• request major revision;
• request additional information or supporting records;
• obtain an additional independent review;
• reassign the manuscript;
• reject the manuscript; or
• refer an ethical or integrity concern under the applicable policy.

The editor is not required to follow a majority reviewer recommendation. The decision letter should explain the principal basis for the decision.

12. Revisions

Authors invited to revise must submit:

1. a revised manuscript;
2. a point-by-point response;
3. a clear indication of changes made; and
4. an explanation where a requested change was not made.

Authors are normally given three weeks to submit a revision.

An extension may be requested before the deadline. If no revision or extension request is received, JFU may close the submission after notifying the corresponding author.

A revised manuscript may be:

• assessed by the handling editor;
• returned to the original reviewers;
• assigned to new reviewers; or
• referred for additional technical, ethical, statistical, or methodological assessment.

Submission of a revision does not guarantee acceptance.

13. Additional and Replacement Reviews

The handling editor may obtain an additional or replacement review when:

• reviewer reports materially conflict;
• a review is incomplete, inappropriate, biased, or unsupported;
• specialized expertise is required;
• a reviewer has an undisclosed competing interest;
• the process appears to have been compromised;
• a major revision introduces significant new analysis or evidence; or
• another independent assessment is necessary for a fair decision.

An editor may disregard a review containing inappropriate language, citation coercion, unsupported allegations, irrelevant demands, confidentiality breaches, or evidence of manipulation.

14. Editor Recusal

Editors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before handling a manuscript.

An editor must recuse themselves when impartiality could be compromised by:

• close collaboration;
• recent co-authorship;
• supervision or student relationships;
• family or personal relationships;
• direct competition;
• financial interests;
• institutional involvement;
• personal disputes; or
• participation in the reported research.

The manuscript must be reassigned to a qualified non-conflicted editor. Editor recusals and replacement assignments must be documented.

15. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

JFU editors, Editorial Board members, guest editors, journal staff members, and researchers affiliated with the publisher may submit manuscripts to JFU.

Such manuscripts receive no preferential treatment.

A manuscript involving an editor or Editorial Board member must be assigned to an independent handling editor. The author-editor must not:

1. select reviewers;
2. access confidential reviewer information;
3. view restricted internal editorial discussion;
4. influence the decision; or
5. handle a complaint or appeal concerning the submission.

The published article may include a disclosure explaining that independent editorial handling was used.

16. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues and guest-edited collections are subject to the same peer-review, integrity, independence, and confidentiality standards as regular issues.

Guest editors must:

1. disclose competing interests;
2. maintain confidentiality;
3. select independent and qualified reviewers;
4. follow this Peer Review Policy;
5. recuse themselves from conflicted manuscripts; and
6. refer material ethical or integrity concerns to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of special issues and may review, modify, or overturn a guest editor’s recommendation when necessary to protect editorial standards and independence.

17. Compromised Peer Review and Reviewer Misconduct

Peer-review misconduct may include:

• reviewer impersonation;
• fabricated reviewer identities;
• manipulated reviewer suggestions;
• unauthorized sharing of manuscripts;
• misuse of confidential information;
• undisclosed material competing interests;
• citation coercion;
• deliberate obstruction or unreasonable delay;
• retaliation;
• use of confidential manuscripts in unauthorized AI systems;
• submission of a review substantially prepared by an undisclosed third party; or
• coordinated interference with the editorial process.

Suspected misconduct is handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

Possible outcomes include:

• cancellation of the affected review;
• reviewer replacement;
• removal from the reviewer database;
• additional independent review;
• reconsideration of an editorial decision;
• correction of the scholarly record;
• notification of an institution where appropriate; or
• another proportionate action.

18. Appeals

An author may appeal an editorial decision by identifying:

1. a material factual error;
2. a material procedural error;
3. an unmanaged competing interest;
4. relevant evidence that was not considered;
5. a substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript; or
6. another matter that could reasonably have affected the decision.

Disagreement with reviewer comments or editorial judgment alone is not sufficient.

Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. The appeal must be reviewed by a person who was not the sole decision-maker in the original matter.

19. Review Timeline

JFU aims to complete the peer-review process within approximately 8 to 14 weeks from submission.

This is a service target, not a guarantee.

The period may vary because of:

• reviewer availability;
• manuscript complexity;
• specialist review requirements;
• the number and extent of revisions;
• reviewer replacement;
• requests for supporting records; or
• investigation of an integrity concern.

Authors will be informed of material delays where practicable.

20. Review Records and Retention

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the double-anonymous model unless disclosure is required by law, authorized by the reviewer, or necessary for a formal integrity investigation.

Review reports form part of the confidential editorial record. JFU may use them for:

• editorial assessment;
• communication with authors;
• integrity assessment;
• complaints and appeals;
• quality monitoring; and
• maintenance of journal records.

JFU does not publish reviewer reports or reviewer identities unless an open-review model is formally adopted and authors and reviewers are informed before review begins.

Reviewer invitations, acceptance or refusal records, competing-interest declarations, reviewer reports, author responses, decision letters, recusals, appeals, integrity records, and relevant system logs are retained securely for at least five years after closure of the editorial record, subject to any longer institutional, legal, contractual, or research-integrity requirement.

21. Related Policies

This policy should be read together with:

1. Publication Ethics;
2. Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct;
3. Complaints and Appeals;
4. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests;
5. Authorship and Contributorship;
6. Research Data, Code, Materials and Reproducibility;
7. Ethical Oversight of Research;
8. Plagiarism and Text Recycling Policy;
9. Generative AI Policy;
10. Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion;
11. Privacy Statement and Personal Data Protection; and
12. Editorial Governance and Independence.

Technical Operational Steps

1. Submission receipt: The Journal Office records the submission and checks the required files and metadata.
2. Technical screening: Journal staff check format, completeness, declarations, anonymization, template compliance, similarity results, and preliminary integrity concerns.
3. Editorial assignment: The Editor-in-Chief assigns a non-conflicted handling editor.
4. Editorial screening: The handling editor assesses scope, originality, methodological suitability, reporting quality, ethics, integrity, and readiness for review.
5. Desk decision: A manuscript that does not meet the journal’s threshold is declined with an appropriate explanation.
6. Reviewer identification: The handling editor identifies reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.
7. Reviewer verification: The editor checks identity, affiliation, expertise, publication history, professional contact information, institutional relationships, and potential competing interests.
8. Reviewer invitation: The invitation states the requested deadline, confidentiality obligations, competing-interest requirements, and responsible-AI restrictions.
9. Acceptance of assignment: The reviewer confirms competence, availability, confidentiality, and absence of disqualifying competing interests.
10. External review: At least two independent reviewers normally assess the manuscript and submit comments and recommendations.
11. Review quality check: The handling editor checks reports for relevance, completeness, bias, inappropriate language, citation coercion, unsupported allegations, confidentiality breaches, and evidence of manipulation.
12. Additional assessment: A replacement or additional review is obtained when existing reports are inadequate, conflicting, compromised, or insufficient.
13. Editorial decision: The designated non-conflicted editor considers the complete record and issues a reasoned decision.
14. Author communication: The corresponding author receives the decision and relevant anonymized reviewer comments.
15. Revision: Authors submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response within the stated period or request an extension.
16. Revision assessment: The editor determines whether the revision requires assessment by the original reviewers, new reviewers, a specialist adviser, or the editor.
17. Final decision: The designated non-conflicted editor makes and records the final decision.
18. Integrity concerns: Suspected compromised review, reviewer misconduct, plagiarism, data problems, image concerns, ethical issues, or AI misuse are referred to the applicable JFU policy.
19. Appeals: An eligible appeal is logged and assigned to a non-conflicted person who was not the sole original decision-maker.
20. Post-publication concerns: If a peer-review problem is discovered after publication, JFU assesses whether re-review, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another action is required.
21. Record retention: The complete peer-review and decision record is retained securely for at least five years, subject to longer applicable requirements.
22. Quality monitoring: The Editor-in-Chief periodically reviews reviewer performance, decision consistency, processing delays, recusal practices, appeal outcomes, and potential manipulation.
23. Policy review: This policy is reviewed at least once every two years and earlier whenever relevant professional guidance, journal procedures, institutional requirements, or applicable law materially change.

Contact

Questions or concerns relating to peer review should be sent to:

Jurnal Fisika Unand Journal Office
Department of Physics
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Universitas Andalas
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email: jfu@sci.unand.ac.id