Peer Review Policy

Peer review is the cornerstone of quality at FJI Press. Every research contribution is evaluated by independent experts before publication.

Review model

FJI Press journals operate double-anonymised peer review: author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other. Conference proceedings use single- or double-anonymised review at the discretion of the volume editors, as stated in the volume front matter.

Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Evaluation criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions on originality and significance, methodological rigour, clarity and organisation of the presentation, adequacy of the literature review, and relevance to the journal or series scope. Reviewers provide an overall recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Reviewer responsibilities

Reviews should be objective, constructive and completed within the agreed timeframe (normally three weeks). Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, must not use unpublished material from them, and must alert the editor to any suspected misconduct or undisclosed competing interest.

Editorial decisions

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or volume editors, who weigh reviewer recommendations alongside their own assessment. Authors receive the (anonymised) reviewer comments with the decision. Appeals against a decision may be submitted with a reasoned rebuttal and are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision.