Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Future employs a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published articles. The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards and follows best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

  1. Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which both the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure an unbiased evaluation.

 

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial office to determine whether they meet the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and basic quality standards.

At this stage:

  • Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they do not meet the journal’s criteria;
  • Submissions are checked for plagiarism using appropriate detection software.

 

  1. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise;
  • Academic qualifications;
  • Previous reviewing experience;
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

 

  1. Review Process

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and scientific contribution;
  • Methodological soundness;
  • Clarity and organization;
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • Quality of data and interpretation.

Reviewers are expected to provide:

  • Constructive comments to improve the manuscript;
  • A clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).

 

  1. Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 1 days up to 2 weeks, although this may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without changes;
  • Accept with minor revisions;
  • Request major revisions;
  • Reject.

In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, the editor may:

  • Invite an additional reviewer;
  • Make a final decision based on editorial judgment.

 

  1. Revision Process

Authors are required to:

  • Address all reviewer comments;
  • Provide a detailed response letter explaining changes made;
  • Resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

 

  1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share or distribute the manuscript;
  • Use unpublished information for personal advantage.

 

  1. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must decline participation if they have any conflicts of interest related to:

  • Authors;
  • Institutions;
  • Funding sources.

 

  1. Ethical Considerations

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with ethical standards. Any suspicion of:

  • Plagiarism;
  • Data manipulation;
  • Ethical violations

will be investigated following COPE guidelines.

 

  1. Reviewer Acknowledgment

The journal recognizes the contribution of reviewers and may:

  • Provide certificates of reviewing;
  • Acknowledge reviewers annually (without compromising anonymity).

 

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request. All appeals are handled objectively and may involve additional independent review.

 

  1. Transparency and Integrity

The Journal of Future is committed to maintaining transparency, fairness, and integrity in the peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research.