Peer Review Policies

Our peer-review process begins with an editorial assessment by the Editor-in-chief and a member of the editorial team member. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether or not a paper should be sent for peer review. If an article does not meet basic standards or does not fall within the Journal's scope, it may be rejected at this stage. Authors can expect a decision within a maximum of 2 weeks of submission.

If a paper moves forward to the review process, it will undergo a double-blind peer review by at least two members of our international expert panel. Authors are responsible for ensuring their identity is concealed during this process. We aim to complete the review process within 4 weeks, although in some rare cases, delays may occur. The final decision regarding acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Role of reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in contributing to the success of the Journal of Fuzzy Extension & Applications. A reviewer's comments play a significant role in the peer review process. Their comments can decide whether an article is accepted or rejected or needs major/minor revisions. Reviewers are requested to review the articles submitted to them in detail and provide unbiased comments, which will improve the quality of the journals.

To maintain confidentiality, they are required to keep their identity undisclosed. If a reviewer feels that an article is technically unqualified, cannot be reviewed promptly, or has a conflict of interest, they should decline to review it. Any outside advice received must be approved by the editor and treated confidentially.

Reviewers should not pass on the article they are reviewing to another reviewer. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the articles published are of high quality and original work. If a reviewer finds that the article submitted for review is under consideration in another publication, they should inform the editor.

There are no fixed rules for analyzing an article. It should be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the article's worthiness, quality, and originality. In general, the following aspects should be checked: the structure of the paper, its relevance to author guidelines, the purpose and objective of the article, the use of transitions, the introduction and conclusion/suggestions provided, the references provided to substantiate the content, grammar, punctuation, plagiarism issues, and the suitability of the article to the need.

Privacy and confidentiality

When submitting their manuscripts for review, authors trust editors with the results of their hard work and creativity. It is important to respect the confidentiality of authors and reviewers, as the publication of their work may affect their career and reputation. Disclosure of confidential information during the review process may violate the authors' rights. Editors must not share any information about the manuscripts, including details about their content, status, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate, other than with the authors and reviewers. Confidentiality may only be breached if fraud or dishonesty is suspected. Reviewers and editorial staff members must also respect the authors' rights by not discussing their work publicly before it is published. Reviewers should not make copies of the manuscript, share it with others, or publish their comments without permission from the author and editor. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. It is important to maintain confidentiality and respect the rights of authors and reviewers throughout the review process.

Conflict of interest in reviewing process

When conducting double-blind peer reviews, it's important to remember that the research community can be quite small. This means that reviewers may already be familiar with the author's work. While providing a fair assessment of an article written by a friend or competitor is possible, it's crucial to disclose any significant conflicts of interest to the editor. If the conflict of interest causes a significant positive or negative bias, declining the review request is better. It's important to avoid personal judgment and criticism and focus solely on evaluating the article. This approach is more likely to be positively received by the author and can lead to better work. Honesty about conflicts of interest is always appreciated by editors, even if they need to find a replacement reviewer. If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues, please get in touch with the Editorial Office at the journal's formal email.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts