Peer Review Policy

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

To ensure an unbiased and objective evaluation, JSFR employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model:

1. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
2. The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout and after the process.

The Review Process: Step-by-Step

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board performs a preliminary assessment. The manuscript is evaluated for:

1. Aims & Scope: Alignment with the journal's focus on soil future research.
2. Plagiarism Check: Screening via iThenticate/Turnitin (Similarity index must be below 15%).
3. Basic Quality: Adherence to author guidelines, language clarity, and structural integrity.
4. Note: Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the author or rejected immediately (Desk Rejection).

Stage 2: External Expert Evaluation

Manuscripts that pass the desk review are assigned to at least two (2) independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers evaluate the work based on:

1. Originality and novelty of the research.
2. Technical soundness and methodological accuracy.
3. Clarity of results and validity of conclusions.
4. Reliability of data and references.

Stage 3: Reviewer’s Recommendation

Reviewers provide a detailed report and suggest one of the following actions:

1. Accept: No changes required.
2. Minor Revision: Small corrections or clarifications needed.
3. Major Revision: Significant improvements or additional data required before reconsidering.
4. Reject: The work is flawed, unoriginal, or outside the scope of the journal.

Stage 4: Author’s Response and Revision

If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. This ensures all concerns have been addressed professionally.

Stage 5: Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after reviewing the revised manuscript and the reviewers' final feedback. The decision is then communicated to the author.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and previous performance. We maintain a diverse database of global experts to ensure a comprehensive and fair review.

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

1. Confidentiality: Manuscripts are treated as highly confidential documents. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or using the data before publication.
2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the research.