Peer Review Process

Editorial and peer review process

The journal uses single-blind peer review. When a manuscript is received, it is examined to determine whether its content meets journal requirements. If it does, the manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers who are selected by the relevant Associate Editor. Based on the Associate Editor’s considered judgment, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on whether the manuscript is either accepted as submitted, returned for revision, or rejected and returned to the author (via the Editorial Office). A manuscript needing revision will be returned to the author with specific suggestions. The authors should respond by indicating the places where revisions have been made in accordance with the suggestions or by stating their reasons for disagreeing with the suggestions. The revised manuscript should be marked or highlighted to indicate changes.

The Associate Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript’s suitability for publication and may also make suggestions to the Editor-in-Chief, such as asking the author to change the type of manuscript submitted (e.g., original article, short report, case report, etc.). The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript.

The journal considers manuscripts submitted in Japanese; they are peer-reviewed in Japanese and, if accepted, are translated into English by the journal. The English version is checked for consistency with the Japanese version by the Editor-in-Chief and the authors. The accepted Japanese version is appended to the English version online as a supplementary file.

The members of the Editorial Board and International Advisory Board act in advisory roles, providing feedback as reviewers and making suggestions to improve the journal.

Reviewer selection, timing, and suggestions

Reviewers are selected without regard to geography and need not belong to the journal’s Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal.

Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within 3 weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Associate Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation, and assignment of peer reviewers are at the Associate Editor’s sole discretion.

Reviewer reports

It is the journal’s policy to transmit reviewers’ comments to the authors in their original form. However, the journal reserves the right to edit reviewers’ comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive language, confidential information, or other inappropriate material.

Acceptance criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated on their correspondence and adherence to the journal’s Aims and Scope and the various policies outlined within this document. In detail, these include whether the study aims are clearly stated and logical; the rationale/justification for conducting the study is clear; the methods are described in sufficient detail so that the experiment can be reliably reproduced; the study design is robust and appropriate to the stated aims; the conclusions are supported by the data; the discussion is critical and comprehensive; and the references are appropriate in number and up to date.

Furthermore, FMJ prioritizes the following elements in its decision making:

• 1.Original research is carried out in a scientifically sound way.
  2.The authors adhere to bioethics and the responsible conduct of research.
  3.The manuscript is prepared in a standard scientific fashion and adheres to the journal’s guidelines.

Poor English usage is not a reason for rejection, but if a manuscript’s language is difficult to comprehend, then authors may be asked to revise and resubmit appropriately.

If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, the Editor-in-Chief may recommend rejection.

Editorial independence

The Fujita Medical Society has granted the journal’s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. The Fujita Medical Society will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.

Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript’s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal’s other interests.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been made in error may lodge an appeal with the Editorial Office. Appeals are only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor. Appeals are considered carefully by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed where and when relevant.

Confidentiality in peer review

The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:

• ・disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure;
  ・discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review;
  ・use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications; or
  ・use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.

In addition, reviewers will not reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript or involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or Ph.D. student) without first requesting permission from the Editor.

Conflicts of interest in peer review

A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived, or potential circumstances that could influence an editor’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.

Members of the journal’s Editorial Board and reviewers undertake or are asked to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer.

Editors try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias.

Errata and retractions

An Erratum is published when the Editor-in-Chief considers it appropriate to inform the journal readership about an error and to correct it in the published article. The Erratum appears as a new article in the journal, and it cites the original published article.

Retractions are considered and published when there are severe errors in an article that invalidate the conclusions. Retractions are also made in cases where there is evidence of publication malpractice, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research.

In cases of Errata and Retractions, no changes are made to the original article.

An Expression of Concern is considered and published by the Editor-in-Chief as an attachment to the original article if the article is under investigation for severe errors or publication malpractice, or if conflicting opinions exist between the journal’s editors and an institutional investigational board regarding the article’s integrity.

Please address any questions relating to research and publication integrity to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief: igakukai2@fujita-hu.ac.jp

The journal may assign external professionals to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally or that are related to the conduct of the journal’s editors.

Editors as authors in the journal

Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief, who is an author of a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process. Within the journal’s online manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.

In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author of a manuscript submitted to the journal, an independent Associate Editor is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal. A manuscript authored by an editor of the journal is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision making as any manuscript considered by the journal.

Responding to potential ethical breaches

The journal will respond to allegations of ethical breaches by following its own policies and, where possible, the guidelines, standards, and materials of COPE. The journal also follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction.

The journal takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts where research misconduct has occurred. The journal will never encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.