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 https://publicationethics.org/corepractices. The following steps are taken in the journal's peer-review process:

Preliminary Manuscript Evaluation

A first appraisal is done on all submitted papers to see whether they fit with the journal's scope, if the research issue is innovative, if the technique is good, and if the writing is clear.  At this point, manuscripts that don't fulfil these standards may be turned down.  The Crossref Similarity Check will be used to check all submitted publications for plagiarism.  This is powered by the iThenticate tool.  The articles that are chosen at this level will be worked on more and sent to at least three/Four experts in the same field for review.

Double-Blinded Review Process

Fernando Martins De Bulhão (FMDB) journals use a double-blind peer review procedure, which means that the authors and reviewers don't know who each other are.  Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge of the subject matter, and any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed and handled according to COPE's rules https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf.  Authors can expect comments on how new, how well the methods worked, how well the results were, and how good the manuscript was overall.

Conflicts in Peer Review Process

FMDB Journals is dedicated to making sure that the peer review process is fair and free of bias.  FMDB Journals keeps an eye on its review process all the time to make sure it follows ethical standards and best practices.  This involves keeping an eye on how well reviewers do their jobs and keeping a database of reviewers that takes possible conflicts of interest into account.  We do a number of things to reduce the chance of conflicts and biases.

Reviewer Selection

When authors recommend reviewers, editors look closely at any possible conflicts of interest.  This means making sure that reviewers are not from the same school, lab, or have close personal or professional ties to the authors.  Author affiliations are also checked for inconsistencies, including email addresses that don't match up with the institution.  If authors mention reviewers they might know, those reviewers will not be able to review the work.  Also, if the topic of a manuscript suggests that it might be biassed, reviewers will be chosen from diverse fields of research. Before taking on a review assignment, potential reviewers must let the publisher know about any conflicts or prejudices they may have.  If there are conflicts or they aren't disclosed, FMDB Journals follows the COPE flowchart rules at https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/conflict-of-interest-submitted-manuscript-article-cope-flowchart.pdf  to deal with them. If there are undisclosed conflicts in published publications, we look at the COPE flowchart for published articles at https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/what-do-if-reader-suspects-undisclosed-conflict-interest-coi-published-article.

Fraudulent Activities

If fraudulent peer review procedures or author affiliation manipulation are found, the paper will be rejected, and the authors will be given a clear reason why.  Authors who think that bias or conflicts are affecting the review of their article can get in touch with the EiC or the editorial office to talk about their concerns and give more information.  Authors must reveal any financial or other conflicts of interest that could affect their research results or interpretations.  This includes personal or professional affiliations, sources of money (such grant numbers), and any other possible conflicts.  If an author or reader thinks there might be a conflict of interest in any published work from FMDB Journals, they should get in touch with the journal's editor or the publisher at editors@fmdbpub.com or ethics@fmdbpub.com.