Peer Review Process | German Journal of Forensic Sciences

German Journal of Forensic Sciences (GJFS), published by Birne Publishing House, is committed to apply double-blind peer reviewing process, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. You may find the journal’s Policies and Guidelines for Peer-reviewers, here.

After an initial screening, all submissions will be refereed by three reviewers during maximum two weeks according to specific research reporting guidelines for different study designs; include CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and STARD for studies of diagnostic accuracy. All authors should send their revised manuscripts within 2 weeks. Reviewers' and authors' identities are kept confidential. The existence of a submitted manuscript is not revealed to anyone other than the reviewers and editorial staff.

Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under supervision of the journal section editor also the editor in chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity and the review will be single blind (i.e. authors do not know reviewers' identities).

We aim to complete the review process within 4 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.

Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers:

Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (double-blind referee) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.

A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.

All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received.

No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately.

Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.

There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.

In general, cases the following may be checked in a review

Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines
Purpose and Objective of the article
Method of using transitions in the article
Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
References provided to substantiate the content
Grammar, punctuation and spelling · Plagiarism issues
Suitability of the article to the need

A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At GJFS we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.

As a reviewer, you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.

Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.

The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.

You should also:

Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
Treat the author’s work the way you would like your own to be treated

Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).

Privacy and Confidentiality

(Prepared Based on ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)

In GJFS, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

GJFS is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.

International Standards for Authors and Editors

Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

Editor in Chief have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article and makes the final decision regarding publication or rejection of the submitted articles without interference of its owner (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Editors, Employees, or Members of the Editorial Board) or economic interests.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.

GJFS is committed to follow and apply International Standards for Authors and Editors of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues.

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we are applying double bind peer review, research sphere can be a small world. It means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:

If there’s a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor
If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request
Avoid personal judgement and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.

Please email the Editorial Office at the journal formal email, if you have any concerns about conflict of interest or ethical issues with the paper.

The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

GJFS, as a member of Birne Journals, is committed to apply following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Birne Publishing House:

How to become a reviewer?

GJFS is currently seeking new reviewers to join our team. For more information and apply send an email to: gjfs@birne-online.de