Peer review principles

All original research articles offered for Faravid undergo a peer review process, the purpose of which is to ensure the high scientific quality of manuscripts published in the journal. Editorials, review articles, book reviews or similar can be evaluated case-by-case within the editorial board, at which time they will be published without a separate scientific quality control. The offered manuscript must be previously unpublished and composed according to Faravid's instructions for the authors. The manuscript must not be simultaneously offered to be published in any other publication channel.

The editorial board familiarizes itself with the offered manuscipts, tentatively estimates their scientific quality, and decides on commencing the peer review process. If the editorial board does not find commencing the peer review process justifiable for example due to the content or incompleteness of the manuscript, it can ask the author to make changes to the text or reject the proposal for publication. The editorial board aims to inform authors about commencing the peer review process and its schedule, any required changes, or rejections as soon as possible, however, not later than within 30 days of submitting the article proposal.

During the peer review process, the editorial board asks for a report concerning the eligibility to publish the manuscript from at least two experts who have been invited to take up the task of peer reviewing. The reviewers, or referees, come from outside of the editorial board, have no conflict of interest concerning the manuscript, and have either completed their PhD or are otherwise experts in their scientific field. The peer review will be performed anonymously (double blind): the identity of the author will not be revealed to the reviewers, nor will the reviewers be revealed the names of the author or other reviewers.

After receiving the reports, the editorial board sends them to the authors while also informs of the editorial board's possible own suggestions for changing or completing the text. In case the reviewers have supported the publication of the manuscript after slight or major changes, the editorial board will also give its view on which suggested changes it holds as preconditions for publishing the article. The editorial board can ask the author to compile a letter to accompany the new version of the manuscript, in which the author comments on the observations made by the reviewers and explains how the suggestions have been taken into consideration.

The editorial board evaluates case-by-case whether the changes made to the original publication proposal have been so significant that they require a new round of peer review. It is possible to ask for a third report of the manuscript also in case the received reports are contradictory with each other. Based on the reports and the changes possibly made by the author, the editorial board makes a final decision on either publishing or rejecting the manuscript.

Instructions for reviewers

Peer review happens through the Journal.fi system. Peer reviewers are sent an invitation to review the manuscript. Discussions and submitting the report happens inside the system, and creating a Journal.fi profile is required for its use. In case problems arise, please contact the technical support to be found in the Contact section.

The purpose of an expert report is to help the editorial board to decide on the manuscript's scientific eligibility for publication. Acting as a reviewer is to be in a position of responsibility, and when agreeing to it the expert commits to handling the manuscripts confidentially and to not using their content for his or her own advantage. Manuscripts must not be discussed with or shown to outsiders.

In a free-form and justified report, the reviewer is asked to evaluate on the offered manuscripts' eligibility to publication using a four-step scale. The reviewer can recommend the manuscript to be 1) published as is, 2) published with slight changes, 3) published with major changes, or 4) rejected. The reports act as guidelines and they do not obligate the editorial board in making the publication decision. The target schedule for peer review is about six weeks.

It is hoped that in the report the reviewer evaluates the merits and shortcomings of the manuscript concerning for example its content, structure, research problem, use of research methods, sources, and conclusions. It is recommended to evaluate also other matters such as wording, use of citations, clarity of tables and images, and the scientific relevance of the research subject.

The editorial board expects the expert reports to be justified, matter-of-fact, and the criticism to be constructive. As concrete suggestions as possible for improving the manuscript help the author to make his or her manuscript even better. Any possible overlap in the manuscript with previously published material, as well as possible suspicions of plagiarism, or shortcomings in marking the citations and sources, should also be stated in the report.

The peer reviewer receives no monetary compensation, but expert and evaluation tasks are counted as scientific merits.