Peer Review Process

The journal's peer review process is dedicated to publishing only high-quality, original, and ethically sound research submissions, in accordance with the criteria set forth in COPE's Core Practices. The following steps are taken in the journal's peer-review process:

Disclaimer: This review process has been developed in accordance with COPE Core Practices and reflects internationally recognized editorial best practices adopted by leading scholarly publishers. It represents the editorial workflow of FMDB Journals and is not an official COPE or publisher-specific review process.

Preliminary Manuscript Evaluation

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their alignment with the journal's scope, the novelty and significance of the research, the robustness of the methodology, the clarity of presentation, and compliance with the journal's ethical and editorial standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review. To ensure academic integrity, all submissions undergo Similarity Screening using the Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate. The Editor evaluates the similarity report to determine whether any detected overlap is acceptable or requires further editorial assessment. Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary evaluation are assigned to a minimum of three independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise for rigorous double-blind peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Fernando Martins De Bulhão (FMDB) Journals employ a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial evaluation are assigned to a minimum of three independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, and all potential conflicts of interest are identified, disclosed, and managed in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript's originality and significance, methodological rigor, validity of the results, quality of the discussion, soundness of the conclusions, and overall scholarly quality. Based on their independent evaluations and recommendations, the Editor makes the appropriate editorial decision in accordance with the journal's peer review policy.

Peer Review Ethics

The journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity. The Chief Editor/Editors will appoint a minimum of three independent external reviewers who possess relevant subject expertise. Selected reviewers are expected to demonstrate professional competence, impartial judgment, and a commitment to completing the review within the stipulated timeframe. Their evaluations and recommendations play a crucial role in editorial decision-making and in guiding authors to enhance the overall quality of their manuscripts.

Reviewers are required to assess all submissions objectively, fairly, and professionally. In recommending acceptance, reviewers must ensure that the manuscript demonstrates originality and significance, contributes meaningfully to the research community, holds relevance for related disciplines, and provides sufficient evidence to support its conclusions. Additionally, reviewers must verify that methodologies are clearly described and that all relevant literature is appropriately cited.

Reviewers must maintain professionalism in their feedback and avoid any statements that are offensive, defamatory, or discourteous. All evaluations should align with the journal’s guidelines regarding scope, content, and quality, and must comply with the publication policies established by the publisher.

Reviewers are expected to adhere strictly to the assigned review deadlines. Typically, reviews should be completed within two weeks. Any request for an extension must be formally approved by the Editors. Reviewers may also be invited to reassess revised manuscripts or provide additional expert input when necessary.

Confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the peer review process. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated communications as strictly confidential, provide objective and professional evaluations, disclose any conflicts of interest, and complete reviews within the timeframe specified by the Editors. Under no circumstances should manuscript content be disclosed, shared, or discussed with any third party without explicit authorization from the Editors.

Conflicts in the Peer Review Process

FMDB Journals is committed to ensuring that the peer review process is fair, transparent, and free from bias. To uphold ethical standards and best practices, the journal continuously monitors its review procedures, including evaluating reviewer performance and maintaining a comprehensive reviewer database that accounts for potential conflicts of interest. Several measures are implemented to minimize conflicts and biases. A conflict of interest may arise when a reviewer has financial or personal interests that could influence their professional judgment regarding a manuscript; therefore, reviewers whose research directly competes with or conflicts with that of the authors are not selected. Additionally, all potential reviewers are required to disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest to the editors before accepting a review assignment, and the editors will determine whether such reviewers should be excluded. Furthermore, reviewers have the right to decline reviewing a manuscript if they identify a conflict of interest or feel they lack sufficient expertise in the subject area.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is conducted in accordance with the journal's editorial policies, the COPE Core Practices, and internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing. The Editor appoints reviewers based on their subject expertise, research experience, and the relevance of their expertise to the manuscript. When authors recommend potential reviewers, the Editorial Office carefully evaluates each recommendation to identify any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. Reviewers are not selected if they have close personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or financial relationships with the authors that could compromise the objectivity or independence of the peer review process. The Editorial Office may verify reviewer affiliations, institutional email addresses (where applicable), publication records, and professional credentials to help ensure reviewer authenticity.

Potential reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest or consider themselves insufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript are expected to decline the invitation. Where necessary, the Editor may appoint alternative reviewers to maintain an impartial and independent review process. Reviewer recommendations provided by authors are considered at the Editor's discretion and do not guarantee reviewer selection. The final decision regarding reviewer appointment rests solely with the Editor. If conflicts of interest are identified during the peer review process, FMDB Journals manages such cases in accordance with the relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts. Where undisclosed conflicts are identified after publication, the journal follows the applicable COPE recommendations and undertakes appropriate editorial actions to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Fraudulent Activities

FMDB Journals is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. Any evidence of fraudulent peer review, reviewer identity manipulation, author affiliation misrepresentation, falsified reviewer information, or other forms of research and publication misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and the COPE Core Practices. Where misconduct is confirmed during the editorial or peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected, and the corresponding author will be informed of the reasons for the editorial decision. If misconduct is identified after publication, the journal will undertake appropriate editorial actions, which may include the publication of a correction, an expression of concern, or the retraction of the article, as appropriate.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision or raise concerns regarding the peer review process by contacting the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Office. All appeals and complaints will be considered objectively and confidentially in accordance with the journal's established procedures. Authors are required to disclose all financial, institutional, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or the publication process. This includes funding sources, grant numbers, affiliations, consultancies, advisory roles, or any other potential conflicts of interest. Authors, reviewers, readers, or other stakeholders who identify suspected ethical concerns or undisclosed conflicts of interest in submitted or published manuscripts are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office. All reported concerns will be handled confidentially and assessed in accordance with the relevant COPE guidance. Where appropriate, formal investigations and editorial actions will be undertaken.