Peer Review Policy

Description

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

Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an author’s identity may be inferred from preprints, datasets, repository records, 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, methodological and analytical soundness, reporting clarity, ethical compliance, reproducibility, and contribution to physics. It does not transfer editorial authority from the journal to reviewers.

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 peer-review standards as regular submissions.

JFU applies this policy across the journal’s scope, including theoretical, computational, experimental, materials, nuclear, medical, environmental, biophysical, electronics, instrumentation, and interdisciplinary physics research.

JFU develops its peer-review procedures with reference to the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE states that reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively and constructively, protect confidentiality, disclose competing interests, avoid misuse of unpublished information, and complete reviews promptly. [publicatio...ethics.org], [members.pu...ethics.org]

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 the submission 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, funding, data-availability, ethics, consent, and generative-AI declarations;
9. permissions for third-party material;
10. disclosure of preprints or other prior dissemination; and
11. similarity-screening results and other preliminary integrity concerns.

A manuscript that does not meet the technical requirements may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before editorial assessment.

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 conducts an initial editorial assessment.

The editor considers:

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 needed 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 peer review when it is:

1. outside the journal’s scope;
2. incomplete or substantially inconsistent with the Author Guidelines;
3. methodologically or analytically inadequate;
4. insufficiently original or scientifically developed;
5. based on claims not adequately supported by the reported evidence;
6. affected by unresolved ethical or integrity concerns;
7. substantially duplicative of previously disseminated work without adequate disclosure or justification; or
8. clearly below the journal’s editorial threshold.

A decision not to send a manuscript for external review must 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 assess the 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 must take reasonable steps to verify reviewer identity and expertise. Verification may include checking institutional affiliation, institutional email address, ORCID record, publication history, professional 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 suitable reviewers or identify persons whom they believe should not review the manuscript. Authors should provide reasons where appropriate.

Author suggestions are advisory. JFU is not required to invite a suggested reviewer or exclude an opposed reviewer.

Editors must independently verify any suggested reviewer’s:

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

Authors must not suggest reviewers using false identities, fabricated email addresses, undisclosed close collaborators, personal associates, or any arrangement intended to manipulate peer review.

Suspected manipulation of reviewer suggestions will be handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

5. Reviewer Competing Interests

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

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

1. has a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
2. is a recent co-author, collaborator, supervisor, or student of an author;
3. is directly affiliated with the same institution, department, laboratory, or research group as an author;
4. has a financial interest connected to the manuscript;
5. is involved in a direct academic, commercial, personal, or legal dispute with an author;
6. has participated in the reported research or manuscript preparation;
7. has previously reviewed substantially the same manuscript for another journal and cannot maintain an independent assessment; or
8. has another interest that could impair or appear to impair objective judgment.

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

Detailed requirements are provided in the Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests Policy.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

1. accept assignments only within their areas of competence;
2. provide an objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessment;
3. evaluate the manuscript fairly, regardless of the authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, location, status, or seniority;
4. protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and editorial process;
5. disclose all relevant competing interests;
6. avoid personal criticism, hostile language, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations;
7. distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
8. avoid requesting citations primarily to increase citations to the reviewer, the reviewer’s associates, a particular journal, or an institution;
9. identify substantial methodological, analytical, reporting, ethical, data, image, or integrity concerns;
10. not use unpublished information for personal, professional, academic, financial, or competitive advantage;
11. not contact the authors directly about the manuscript;
12. provide accurate information about identity, affiliation, and expertise;
13. notify the editor if another person contributed to the review; and
14. submit the review within the agreed period or promptly request an extension.

Reviewer comments should address the scientific content rather than attempt to rewrite the manuscript according to personal stylistic preferences.

A reviewer who suspects misconduct should report the concern confidentially to the editor and provide relevant evidence where available. The reviewer should not investigate the authors independently.

7. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, data, images, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial comments, and correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

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

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

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

8. Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

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

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer’s scholarly judgment, critical assessment, or responsibility for the submitted review.

If JFU authorizes the use of a specific AI-assisted tool within a protected journal environment, the reviewer must:

1. comply with the journal’s instructions;
2. disclose the use of the tool to the editor;
3. verify all AI-assisted output;
4. ensure that the review reflects the reviewer’s own assessment; and
5. accept full responsibility for the final review.

Suspected inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI may result in rejection of the review, removal of the reviewer, notification of the reviewer’s institution where appropriate, or assessment under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

Detailed requirements are provided in the Generative AI 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 in sufficient detail for scientific assessment and reasonable replication;
6. reports instruments, software, models, calibration procedures, 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 tables, figures, images, and supplementary materials appropriately;
11. cites relevant literature accurately and fairly;
12. complies with ethical, consent, privacy, permit, and safety requirements;
13. provides appropriate data, code, and materials information;
14. contains no apparent fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deceptive manipulation, or duplicate publication; and
15. is written clearly enough for its scientific content to be evaluated.

Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because a manuscript requires language improvement when the scientific content can be adequately assessed.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited clarification or correction that does not substantially alter its methods, analysis, or conclusions.
3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes, additional explanation, analysis, reporting, or evidence before a publication decision can be made.
4. Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision or does not meet the journal’s scope or publication standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial decision.

Reviewers should provide reasons that are consistent with their comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor.

11. Editorial Decisions

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

1. the manuscript;
2. reviewer reports;
3. the quality and consistency 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:

1. accept the manuscript;
2. request minor revision;
3. request major revision;
4. request additional information or supporting records;
5. obtain an additional independent review;
6. reassign the manuscript to another editor;
7. reject the manuscript; or
8. refer an ethical or integrity concern under the applicable JFU policy.

The editor is not required to follow the majority recommendation when reviewer reports differ. 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 to editor and reviewer comments;
3. a clear indication of the 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, the journal may close the submission after notifying the corresponding author.

A revised manuscript may be:

1. assessed by the handling editor;
2. returned to the original reviewers;
3. assigned to new reviewers; or
4. subject to additional ethical or technical assessment.

The submission of a revision does not guarantee acceptance.

13. Additional and Replacement Reviews

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

1. reviewer reports materially conflict;
2. a review is incomplete, inappropriate, biased, or unsupported;
3. specialized methodological or ethical expertise is required;
4. a reviewer has an undisclosed competing interest;
5. the review process appears to have been compromised;
6. a major revision introduces material new analysis or evidence; or
7. another independent assessment is necessary for a fair decision.

An editor may disregard a review that contains inappropriate language, citation coercion, unsupported allegations, irrelevant demands, or evidence of compromised review.

14. Editorial and Board Member Submissions

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

Such submissions receive no preferential treatment.

A submission 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 internal editorial discussion;
4. influence the decision; or
5. handle an appeal concerning the submission.

The article should include an appropriate disclosure when necessary to explain independent editorial handling.

15. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues and guest-edited collections are subject to the same standards as regular issues.

Guest editors must:

1. disclose competing interests;
2. maintain confidentiality;
3. use independent and qualified reviewers;
4. follow the JFU Peer Review Policy;
5. avoid handling submissions involving close collaborators or other relevant conflicts; 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 where necessary to protect editorial standards and independence.

16. Peer-Review Misconduct

Peer-review misconduct may include:

1. reviewer impersonation;
2. fabricated reviewer identities;
3. manipulated reviewer suggestions;
4. unauthorized sharing of manuscripts;
5. misuse of confidential information;
6. undisclosed material competing interests;
7. citation coercion;
8. deliberate obstruction or unreasonable delay;
9. retaliation against authors or complainants;
10. use of confidential manuscripts in unauthorized AI systems;
11. submission of a review written substantially by an undisclosed third party; or
12. coordinated interference with the editorial process.

Suspected peer-review misconduct will be handled under the Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

Possible outcomes include cancellation of the review, replacement review, removal of a reviewer, reconsideration of an editorial decision, correction of the published record, notification of an institution, or another proportionate action.

17. Appeals

An author may appeal an editorial decision when the author can identify:

1. a material factual error;
2. a material procedural error;
3. an unmanaged competing interest;
4. evidence that the decision substantially misunderstood the manuscript; or
5. another issue that could reasonably have affected the decision.

Disagreement with reviewer comments or the academic judgment of the editor, without evidence of a material error or procedural problem, is not sufficient.

Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. The person reviewing an appeal must not be the sole decision-maker in the matter being challenged.

18. Review Timeline

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

This period is a service target, not a guarantee. The duration may vary according to:

1. the availability of qualified reviewers;
2. the complexity of the manuscript;
3. the need for specialized methodological or ethical review;
4. the number and extent of revisions;
5. reviewer replacement;
6. requests for supporting records; or
7. investigation of an integrity concern.

Authors will be informed of material delays where practicable.

19. Recognition and Ownership of Reviews

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. Reviewers retain responsibility for the content of their reports but authorize JFU to use the reports for editorial assessment, communication with authors, integrity review, appeals, and maintenance of the journal’s records.

JFU does not publish reviewer reports or reviewer identities unless the journal formally adopts an open-review model and informs authors and reviewers before review begins.

20. 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;
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 manuscript files and metadata.
2. Technical screening: Journal staff check format, completeness, declarations, anonymization, template compliance, 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 reason. A manuscript that can proceed moves to reviewer selection.
6. Reviewer identification: The handling editor identifies reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.
7. Reviewer verification: The editor checks identity, professional affiliation, expertise, publication history, contact information, institutional relationship, and potential competing interests.
8. Reviewer invitation: The invitation states the manuscript title, abstract or relevant summary, requested deadline, confidentiality obligations, conflict requirements, and responsible-AI restrictions.
9. Acceptance of assignment: The reviewer confirms competence, availability, confidentiality, and absence of disqualifying competing interests.
10. Review: The reviewer evaluates the manuscript against the journal’s review criteria and submits comments for the authors, confidential comments for the editor where necessary, and a recommendation.
11. Review quality check: The handling editor checks each report for relevance, completeness, consistency, bias, inappropriate language, citation coercion, confidentiality breaches, unsupported allegations, and indications of manipulated review.
12. Additional assessment: The editor obtains a replacement or additional review when the existing reports are inadequate, conflicting, compromised, or insufficient for a fair decision.
13. Editorial decision: The designated non-conflicted editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, declarations, ethical requirements, and editorial record, then issues a reasoned decision.
14. Communication: The corresponding author receives the decision and relevant anonymized reviewer comments. Confidential reviewer information is not disclosed.
15. Revision: When revision is invited, the author submits a revised manuscript and point-by-point response within the stated period or requests an extension before the deadline.
16. Revision assessment: The editor decides 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, data or image concerns, plagiarism, ethical problems, or other integrity matters 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 decision-maker in the original matter.
20. Record retention: The journal retains reviewer invitations, acceptance or refusal records, conflict declarations, reviewer reports, decision letters, author responses, recusals, integrity records, and relevant system logs in accordance with institutional requirements.
21. Post-publication review 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.
22. Quality monitoring: The Editor-in-Chief periodically reviews reviewer performance, decision consistency, processing delays, recusal practices, appeal outcomes, and indications of manipulation.
23. Policy review: This policy is reviewed at least once every two years and earlier whenever relevant procedures, professional standards, institutional requirements, or applicable law materially change.