JUFGNSM uses double-blind review and the authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. Therefore, a Title Page containing the Authors details and a Blinded Manuscript with no author details are required.
Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publication:
1. We encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarize themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
2. We expect those who oversee the peer review process to be able to recognize warning signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review (https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE%20PR_Manipulation_Process.pdf), and to raise any concerns by emailing email@example.com.
3. We support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;
4. We protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity forms part of that publication’s peer review process. We also expect our authors and peer reviewers to uphold any relevant confidentiality arrangements and to provide necessary information to support this.
5. We have commitment to protect all information of submitted articles from untrusted ones.
6. Each one of peer reviewers who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
7. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
The peer review process can be summarized into 8 steps:
1. Submission of Paper: The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal.
2. Editorial Office Assessment: The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Editor: The handling editor checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained.
5. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline.
6. Review is Conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
8. The Decision is Communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
The review process is briefly demonstrated in the following flowchart: