Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a fundamental role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. FMDB values the time, expertise, and commitment of reviewers who contribute to ensuring that published research meets the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and ethical conduct. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and confidentially while providing constructive comments that assist editors in making editorial decisions and help authors improve their work. FMDB follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process and develops its reviewer policies in accordance with the COPE Core Practices, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and internationally recognized standards of publication ethics.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers should ensure that:

• The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
• They can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• They have no actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
• They are able to provide an objective, unbiased, and confidential assessment.

Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest should immediately notify the Editorial Office and decline the review invitation.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

• Treat all manuscript content as confidential.
• Not share manuscripts with colleagues or third parties without prior permission from the Editorial Office.
• Not use unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal research or professional advantage.
• Destroy or delete manuscript files after completing the review, where appropriate.

The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the double-blind peer review process.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor if they identify potential ethical concerns, including:

• Plagiarism or substantial text overlap
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Ethical concerns involving research involving humans or animals
• Citation manipulation or inappropriate self-citation

Any suspected research misconduct will be handled in accordance with FMDB's publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively and provide constructive recommendations based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research
• Scientific validity and methodological rigor
• Significance and contribution to the field
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation
• Adequacy and relevance of references
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity, organization, and presentation
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials
• Strength and validity of the conclusions

Reviewers should provide specific comments that help authors improve their manuscripts while maintaining a professional and respectful tone.

Timeliness

Timely peer review is essential for efficient scholarly communication. Reviewers who are unable to complete the review within the requested deadline should promptly inform the Editorial Office so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Review Recommendations

Following their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Review Reports

Review reports should:

• Be objective, evidence-based, and constructive
• Clearly explain the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript
• Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions
• Avoid inappropriate or personal criticism
• Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process

Comments intended only for the Editor should be submitted separately from comments intended for the authors.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or any part of their content into publicly available generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or services that may retain, reuse, or disclose submitted material. If AI-assisted tools are used solely for improving language or formatting, reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, integrity, and content of their review.

Editorial Decisions

Editors consider reviewer reports together with their independent editorial assessment when making publication decisions.

Editorial decisions are based solely on:

• Scholarly merit
• Originality
• Scientific quality
• Methodological rigor
• Ethical compliance
• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered but are not binding on the Editor.

Recognition of Reviewers

FMDB sincerely appreciates the valuable contributions of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers' efforts are recognized through the journal's editorial processes while maintaining the confidentiality of individual peer reviews unless otherwise permitted by journal policy.