For reviewers

(according to the recommendations of the COPE Committee on Publication Ethics)

General Ethical Principles of Review

To accept an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers must have expertise in the subject matter or methodology and be able to complete their assessment within the specified timeframe. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review throughout the review process and until publication in FAJPC. Neither reviewers nor members of their research teams may use the data reported in the manuscript. Reviewers and their research teams must not use these data to disparage the authors or their work. Reviewers must disclose all potential conflicts of interest, whether personal, financial, professional, political, or otherwise. If uncertain about a potential conflict of interest, they must seek advice from the journal. Reviewers must not be influenced by commercial considerations or by the authors’ background, nationality, religion, political affiliation, gender, or other personal characteristics. Reviews must be as objective and constructive as possible. Reviewers should adopt an impartial and respectful approach, ensuring that their assessments do not reflect their personal feelings, whether hostility or enthusiasm. Reviewers must recognize that peer review is a reciprocal process aimed at improving quality. They undertake to provide FAJPC with accurate personal and professional information and a precise description of their expertise. Impersonation during the peer review process is considered serious misconduct.

During reviewer selection, reviewers are asked to accept an invitation only if they are confident that they can complete the review within the specified timeframe, usually four weeks. If they require additional time, they must promptly notify the journal and agree on an extension. Reviewers must decline invitations if they cannot complete the review within the specified timeframe and must not deliberately delay the process. They must inform FAJPC if they believe they lack the expertise required to assess all or part of the manuscript. Working in the same research team as the authors, applying for a position within that team, having collaborated with the authors, or having had a supervisory or subordinate relationship with them, including as a doctoral or master’s student, within the past three years constitutes a professional conflict of interest. Reviewers must not accept an invitation solely to enhance their curriculum vitae. They must decline if they have been involved in any part of the research or are preparing a similar manuscript. They must also decline if they are uncomfortable with FAJPC’s peer review models or are unable to provide an unbiased assessment. If they have previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal, reviewers undertake to conduct a new assessment, as the manuscript may have changed between submissions and the journals may apply different acceptance or rejection criteria.

During the review, reviewers must notify FAJPC of any potential conflict of interest that was not identified when they accepted the invitation. They must disclose any circumstance that could bias their assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers should begin by reading the abstract and may stop at that point if they identify a potential conflict of interest. They must not access the manuscript or any accompanying files if FAJPC withdraws the review invitation. Reviewers must read the manuscript and all documents relevant to the review, including the reviewer guidelines, the principles of transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing, and FAJPC’s ethical guidelines. They should contact FAJPC if they consider the guidance unclear or incomplete. If, after reading the full manuscript, reviewers conclude that they lack the expertise required to assess all or part of it, they must notify FAJPC as promptly as possible to avoid delaying its evaluation. Reviewers must not share their review or ask anyone else to review the manuscript, including junior researchers they supervise, without first obtaining permission from FAJPC. Anyone who assists with the assessment must be named in the review report so that they can be formally recognized as a reviewer. Details of the manuscript and the review must remain confidential. If reviewers anticipate that they will be unable to meet the review deadline, they must promptly notify FAJPC and request an extension. The additional time requested must be agreed upon with the journal. Under these circumstances, FAJPC may appoint a different reviewer at any time.

Manuscripts undergo blinded review by two or three reviewers. If reviewers suspect that a manuscript violates the journal’s ethical principles, for example because of similarities to a manuscript simultaneously submitted to another journal, similarities to a previously published article, or failure to comply with the ethical guidelines for authors, they must immediately notify FAJPC. These ethical concerns must not be disclosed to others, and reviewers must not investigate them without authorization from FAJPC. Reviewers must not deliberately prolong the review process by withholding their assessment or requesting unnecessary additional information from FAJPC or the authors. Their assessment must be based on the merits of the manuscript and must not be influenced by personal, professional, financial, or intellectual conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly without permission from FAJPC.

When preparing their report, reviewers are expected to provide FAJPC with an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both the research and the manuscript. They must follow the reviewer guidelines and notify FAJPC if they disagree with them. Reviews must be as objective and constructive as possible. Comments should be respectful and clear, helping authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers must not make derogatory or defamatory personal remarks. Their assessments must be specific and appropriately supported by references, helping the journal reach a decision that is as fair as possible to the authors. Reviewers must not rewrite the manuscript merely to reflect their stylistic preferences. Suggested changes should aim to improve the clarity of the manuscript. Reviewers must consider the language difficulties faced by authors submitting to FAJPC who are not native speakers of French or English. They must distinguish between additional research that is essential to the quality of the work under review and research that could be pursued in future studies. The review must not give the impression that it was written by someone other than the designated reviewer. It must not unfairly implicate another person or include unfair negative comments about the work of a potential competitor. Review reports are shared with the authors. FAJPC reserves the right to remove comments it considers disrespectful or unconstructive. If reviewers submit confidential comments intended solely for the journal, these must not contain disparaging remarks or false allegations. Reviewers must not ask authors to cite their own work or that of their collaborators solely to increase its visibility. Such suggestions must be intended to improve the quality of the work. FAJPC publishes the review reports and the reviewers’ names at the end of the process. When FAJPC’s editorial team conducts the peer review itself, it undertakes to act transparently and fairly and to comply with the ethical guidelines for reviewers.

After the review has been completed, the confidentiality requirements applicable to the manuscript and the review remain in effect. Reviewers must contact FAJPC if they subsequently identify additional information that could improve the quality of the work. If invited to conduct a second review, they must respond within the specified timeframe. The second review must address any requests made by FAJPC. Reviewers must read the other reviewers’ reports to improve the quality of their own reviews, deepen their understanding of the subject, and understand the journal’s final decision.