Peer Review Policy

Fundamental Scientific Reports in Multidisciplinary Areas (FSRMA) is committed to maintaining rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent editorial standards. All research articles submitted to the journal are evaluated through a formal peer-review process before publication.

Type of Peer Review

FSRMA follows a double-blind peer review model.

Under this system:

The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts independently, objectively, confidentially, and solely on their scholarly merit.

The journal takes reasonable measures to remove identifying information from manuscripts before they are sent for external review.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office or an appropriate editor. This screening determines whether the submission:

Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
Meets the journal's basic formatting and submission requirements.
Demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality and relevance to proceed to peer review.
Complies with applicable ethical and research-integrity requirements.
Contains appropriate declarations concerning authorship, conflicts of interest, funding, and research ethics where relevant.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially deficient in scholarly quality, or inconsistent with the journal's ethical or submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

Independent External Review

Each research article that proceeds to peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers involved in the external peer-review process are selected for their relevant academic or professional expertise and should not be members of the journal's editorial team responsible for managing the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is based on factors such as:

Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript.
Appropriate academic or professional qualifications.
Research or publication experience in the relevant field.
Ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment.
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers if requested or permitted by the journal; however, the editorial team is not obliged to use those suggestions. The final selection of reviewers remains solely with the journal.

Conflict of Interest for Reviewers

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when circumstances could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, their independence. Such circumstances may include close personal, professional, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, financial, or competitive relationships with the authors or their work.

Where a relevant conflict is identified, the journal will normally appoint an alternative reviewer.

Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

Share the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized individuals.
Use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless expressly authorized by the journal.
Disclose their identity where doing so would conflict with the journal's double-blind review process.

Review reports and editorial correspondence are handled confidentially unless disclosure is required by law, ethical investigation, or another legitimate scholarly publishing process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts on relevant scholarly criteria, including:

Originality and significance of the research.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology.
Reliability and clarity of the analysis.
Adequacy of the evidence supporting the conclusions.
Organization, coherence, and clarity of presentation.
Engagement with relevant scholarly literature.
Ethical compliance where applicable.
Accuracy and completeness of reporting.
Contribution to existing scientific or scholarly knowledge.

Reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and sufficiently detailed comments.

Review Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept.
Minor revision.
Major revision.
Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be published.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor is responsible for the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, the quality and integrity of the manuscript, and its suitability for FSRMA.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and are not influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to the academic quality of the work.

Acceptance is never guaranteed at the time of submission.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review before making a final decision.

Revisions and Author Responses

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

A revised manuscript.
A point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editors' comments.
A clear explanation of the changes made.
A reasoned scholarly explanation for any recommendation that has not been followed.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other qualified reviewers when additional expert assessment is required.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

Peer Review Timeline

FSRMA aims to complete the overall editorial, peer-review, revision, and publication process within approximately 8 weeks from the date of initial manuscript submission.

This timeframe includes initial editorial screening, external peer review, author revisions, final editorial decision, copyediting, production, and publication. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number and extent of revision rounds, author response time, and editorial or production requirements.

Plagiarism and Research Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened for text similarity and other integrity concerns as part of the journal's editorial quality-control process.

Similarity reports are interpreted by an editor or appropriately designated journal staff and are not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision.

Where suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct are identified, FSRMA will investigate the matter in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

Ethical Compliance

Authors must provide appropriate ethical information when research involves human participants, identifiable personal information, animals, clinical research, or other areas requiring ethical approval or informed consent.

Where applicable, manuscripts should clearly identify:

The approving ethics committee or institutional review board.
Approval or reference number, where available.
Informed-consent procedures.
Relevant declarations concerning conflicts of interest.
Funding sources.

Special Issues and Thematic Collections

Research articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same minimum peer-review standards as regular research articles, including review by at least two independent reviewers.

Guest editors must not independently accept their own manuscripts or manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.

Where a guest editor is an author or has a relevant conflict, the manuscript will be handled by another independent editor with no conflicting relationship.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the editorial and peer-review process.

Supplementary Material

Where supplementary files contain material that is necessary to support or evaluate the conclusions of the research article, reviewers may be provided access to those materials as part of the peer-review process.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that supplementary materials do not disclose identifying information where this would compromise double-blind review.

Peer Review Reports

Under FSRMA's double-blind review model, reviewer identities and confidential review reports are not ordinarily published with the final article unless the journal explicitly introduces a different review arrangement and clearly informs all participants in advance.

Exceptions to Peer Review

Research articles published by FSRMA are subject to peer review as described above.

Non-research content, if published by the journal, such as editorials, corrigenda, announcements, or other editorial material, may follow a different editorial assessment process. Any material that is not externally peer reviewed should be clearly identified as such.

If an individual article follows a review process that differs from the journal's standard procedure, the type of review received should be transparently indicated with that article.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or material oversight may submit a written appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should explain clearly the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information.

Appeals do not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision. Where appropriate, an appeal may be assessed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

Editorial Independence and Ethical Standards

FSRMA is committed to editorial independence, confidentiality, fairness, and research integrity.

The journal follows recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing and uses relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when addressing publication-ethics concerns.

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, validity, originality, relevance, and integrity of the submitted work.