FJMRI Journal | ISSN: Applied | DOI: via Zenodo | Open Access
Register
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers · Objective Rubric

Reviewer Guidelines & Code of Conduct

Peer reviewers form the backbone of scientific quality. These guidelines delineate the ethical obligations, objective evaluation standards, and procedural commitments expected of all FJMRI referees.

🎓 COPE Reviewer Code ⏱️ 4–5 Day Turnaround 🔒 Absolute Anonymity Last Updated: January 2026

01. Core Reviewer Responsibilities

When accepting an invitation to review a manuscript for FJMRI, reviewers agree to:

  • Possess genuine domain expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.
  • Adhere to the journal's double-blind peer review protocol and 4 to 5 day turnaround commitment.
  • Provide rigorous, impartial, and actionable feedback that helps authors improve their scholarship and aids editors in reaching balanced decisions.

02. Absolute Confidentiality & Data Protection

Unpublished manuscripts are privileged legal communications:

🔒
Confidentiality Mandates: Reviewers must not share, discuss, duplicate, or quote from unpublished submissions. Manuscripts may never be uploaded to third-party commercial AI tools or shared with laboratory colleagues or graduate students without prior written approval from the handling editor.

03. Conflict of Interest & Mandatory Recusal

Referees must decline a review invitation immediately if:

Institutional Affiliation

They share an academic institution, department, or company with any of the authors.

Recent Collaboration

They have co-authored publications, grant proposals, or projects with the authors in the preceding 3 years.

Personal or Advisory Ties

They served as PhD advisor, mentee, or have personal relationships with the authors.

Direct Financial Interest

They have a direct commercial interest in the success or failure of the technology described.

04. 7-Point Objective Evaluation Rubric

Referees assess manuscripts across seven standardized dimensions:

  1. Originality & Novelty: Does the paper present fresh theoretical insights, novel empirical findings, or innovative multidisciplinary applications?
  2. Theoretical Rigor: Are hypotheses, mathematical proofs, and conceptual frameworks well-founded and grounded in literature?
  3. Methodological Soundness: Is the research design reproducible, with sample sizes and controls clearly delineated?
  4. Statistical Validity: Are appropriate statistical tests performed, effect sizes reported, and error bars documented?
  5. Clarity of Presentation: Is the manuscript logically organized, adhering to single-column structure and clear English prose?
  6. Figure & Data Quality: Are micrographs, charts, and visualizations crisp, unambiguous, and free from digital alteration?
  7. Scholarly Referencing: Are relevant baseline and state-of-the-art publications cited fairly and comprehensively?

05. Constructive Tone & Anti-Harassment Standards

Reviews must maintain a polite, collegial, and constructive tone. Personal insults, sarcastic remarks, derogatory statements concerning an author's nationality, gender, or English proficiency are unacceptable. Editors reserve the right to edit or reject referee reports violating these civility standards.

06. Turnaround Commitment & Reviewer Recognition

Referees commit to completing evaluations typically within 7 to 14 days. In appreciation of their vital contribution:

Reviewer Certificates

Official, verified digital Certificates of Peer Review Excellence issued for each completed review.

ORCID Academic Credit

Official review confirmation records and verified credentials for inclusion in reviewer ORCID profiles.

Board Promotion

Consistent, top-rated reviewers are fast-tracked for appointment to the Associate Editorial Board.

Annual Recognition

Distinguished reviewers recognized publicly in our annual editorial honor roll.