Peer Review Policy

Editorial Screening

Every submission first undergoes an editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. This assessment may consider:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• originality and potential scientific value;
• methodological adequacy and clarity;
• compliance with ethical and authorship requirements;
• completeness and quality of presentation; and
• compliance with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is clearly outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient scientific quality or originality, contains serious methodological or ethical problems, or does not meet essential submission requirements.

---

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when a manuscript is interdisciplinary, technically complex, or requires specialized assessment.

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the journal is not obliged to use those suggestions. The selection and appointment of reviewers remain the responsibility of the editorial office.

Reviewers provide recommendations and supporting comments, but the final editorial decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor.

---

Review Timelines

IJFPS aims to provide an initial editorial or peer-review decision within approximately three to four weeks whenever practicable.

---

Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Following editorial assessment and, where applicable, external peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any final technical checks;
• Minor Revision: limited changes are required before a final decision;
• Major Revision: substantial scientific, methodological, or presentational changes are required; or
• Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in IJFPS.

Authors submitting a revised manuscript should provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Changes in the revised manuscript should be identified where requested.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers. An invitation to revise does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

---

Review Standards and Reviewer Responsibilities

IJFPS expects reviewers to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessments. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript only within areas in which they possess appropriate expertise.

Reviewers must:

• maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials;
• declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
• avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
• avoid contacting authors directly about the manuscript;
• identify relevant methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns; and
• notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplication, data manipulation, or other misconduct.

The journal follows the principles described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

---

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information are treated as confidential and used solely for editorial evaluation.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished material without authorization. A reviewer must not involve another person in preparing a review without prior permission from the journal.

---

Originality, Duplicate Publication, and Similarity Screening

Submissions must be original, must not have been published previously, and must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Authors must disclose related manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, or earlier versions that could reasonably be considered to overlap with the submission.

Manuscripts may be evaluated using similarity-detection tools and editorial assessment. A similarity report is an investigative aid and is not, by itself, conclusive evidence of plagiarism.

Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, unattributed reuse, image or data manipulation, citation manipulation, or other misconduct will be investigated before an editorial decision or post-publication action is taken. Authors may be asked to provide explanations, original data, documentation, or corrected material.

---

Data, Methods, and Reproducibility

Authors should provide sufficient methodological detail to permit scientific evaluation and, where reasonably possible, replication. Appropriate data, code, software, materials, or availability statements should be provided when relevant to the research.

---

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors must disclose substantive use of artificial intelligence tools in manuscript preparation, code generation, data analysis, image production, or other research activities. Any AI-assisted analysis or generation that materially affects the study should be described with sufficient transparency to permit evaluation.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, appropriate attribution, and ethical compliance of all submitted content.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research information to external generative-AI systems unless expressly authorized by the journal and consistent with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

---

Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Authors must disclose all relevant financial, professional, institutional, and personal conflicts of interest, together with applicable sources of funding.

Editors and reviewers must decline involvement when a conflict could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their impartiality. Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial-board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal will be handled through an independent editorial process.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, peer-review advice, journal policy, and publication-ethics requirements. Commercial considerations or payment of publication charges do not determine acceptance.

---

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

When a significant error or confirmed ethical problem is identified after publication, IJFPS may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice according to the nature and seriousness of the matter.

A retracted article will normally remain part of the scholarly record and will be clearly identified as retracted. A transparent retraction notice will explain the reason and will be linked to the affected article. Complete removal is reserved for exceptional circumstances involving legal requirements, serious privacy concerns, or substantial risks of harm.

Where applicable, the article landing page and Crossref metadata will be updated to reflect the corrected or retracted status and to link the original article with the relevant notice. IJFPS follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines and relevant Crossref guidance on corrections and retractions.

---

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned letter that identifies the decision being challenged and provides a clear scientific or procedural basis for reconsideration.

Appeals and complaints should be sent to fundamentaljournals@gmail.com. Where practicable, an appeal will be considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Additional independent review may be obtained when appropriate.

An appeal is not a new round of routine revision and does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The decision reached after completion of the journal’s appeal procedure is final.

---