The Peer Review Process at Journal Name

Our process strives to be transparent, fair, thorough, and objective, and is periodically revised. The Editor-in-Chief appoints individuals to the editorial board who serve as decision editors, managing the peer review of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection and Performance

• Candidates should generally have a minimum of two peer-reviewed research papers published for which they served as first or second author.
• Decision editors assess all reviews for quality (1-4 scale) and other performance characteristics (e.g., timeliness, acceptance rate).
• Reviewers with inadequate performance will not be reappointed.

Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

The peer-review process is double-blinded: the identity of authors and reviewers is kept confidential, provided authors have adequately removed all identifying information from the manuscript.

A submitted manuscript is a confidential communication. Peer reviewers must not retain, share, or copy it unless approved by the decision editor (e.g., for confidential input from a bound colleague).

Appeals of Editor's Decision

If an author appeals a decision, the appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult with senior editors. The EIC may affirm the initial decision or allow resubmission for another peer review with a different decision editor and reviewers.

Misconduct and Ethical Guidelines

Journal Name subscribes to the concepts promulgated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the COPE flowcharts will guide the investigation and resolution of allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data, reviewer misconduct).

The journal's role is not to sanction individuals, which is the purview of an employer, granting agency, or regulatory body.