Introduction

Our journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor. The cornerstone of this commitment is a robust, fair, and confidential peer-review process. This policy outlines the procedures, timelines, and expectations for authors submitting their work.

Our peer review process is fundamental to maintaining the high quality and integrity of the research we publish. Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. These reviewers assess the work's significance, originality, methodological validity, and scientific coherence, as well as screening for plagiarism and prior publication. The final editorial decision is based on these expert reports.

1. Peer Review Model

We employ a double-blind peer review system, where both the author's and reviewer's identities are concealed. This ensures impartiality by keeping the identities of both the authors and the reviewers concealed from each other throughout the evaluation process.

2. The Review Process: Step-by-Step

Upon submission, each manuscript progresses through the following stages:

2.1 Initial Editorial Assessment (1-3 business days)

• The editorial team performs an initial check to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and meets basic submission requirements.
• The manuscript is screened for plagiarism and overall originality.
• Possible Outcomes: The manuscript proceeds to peer review, is returned for technical corrections, or is desk-rejected if it does not meet initial criteria.

2.2 Peer Review (Approximately 3-4 weeks)

• Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise.
• The Associate Editor invites a minimum of two independent, external reviewers to evaluate the manuscript.
• Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly expertise and experience.

2.3 Editorial Decision

The Associate Editor consolidates the reviewers' reports and makes a final decision in consensus with the editorial team and Editor-in-Chief, which is communicated to the corresponding author along with the anonymized reviewer comments.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Authors will receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is or with minor grammar corrections.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires clarifications and minor corrections. Authors are typically given 4 weeks to submit a revised version along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript shows potential but requires substantial additional analysis, experimentation, or rewriting. Authors are typically given 4-6 weeks to revise. The revised manuscript is usually sent back to the original reviewers for re-assessment.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication due to fundamental flaws, lack of novelty, or being out of scope. The decision to reject is final.

Note: In cases of decisions (b) and (c), acceptance or rejection shall be based on the re-evaluation of the revised manuscript and communicated to the author accordingly.

2.4 Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

• Methodological soundness
• Clarity and presentation
• Interpretation and conclusions

They provide constructive, detailed, and objective feedback to help authors improve their work and assist the editor in making the final decision

2.5 Responsibilities of Authors

• Response to Reviewers: When submitting a revision, authors must provide a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document that addresses every comment, indicating the specific changes made and their location in the manuscript.
• Timeliness: Revised manuscripts should be resubmitted within the specified deadline. Requests for extension must be made to the Editorial Office in advance.
• Confidentiality: The peer review process is confidential. Authors must not disclose reviewer comments or share them publicly.

2.6 Appeals Process

Authors who believe that a significant error occurred during the review process may appeal the rejection decision.

• Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of the decision date.
• The appeal must provide a detailed, scientific justification for the challenge; it cannot be based solely on a disagreement with the outcome.
• The Editor-in-Chief's decision following an appeal is final.

Contact

For questions regarding your manuscript's status or the peer review process, please contact the Editorial Office at FJHS@fmc.au.edu.pk.