Novel Forensic Research (NOFOR) follows a double-blind peer review
process, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers remain
confidential throughout manuscript evaluation.
The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, transparent,
and scientifically rigorous peer review process in accordance with the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations.
Initial Editorial Evaluation
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial
Office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.
Manuscripts are assessed for compliance with the journal's aims and scope,
submission requirements, scientific quality, originality, ethical standards,
and publication policies.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without
external peer review.
Submissions that pass the initial evaluation are assigned to at
least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the
subject area.
Research articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses may also undergo
statistical review by a qualified statistical expert when appropriate.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal employs a double-blind review model in which the identities of
authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.
Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise, academic
qualifications, and independence from the authors.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
·
Originality and scientific contribution.
·
Methodological accuracy and scientific validity.
·
Ethical compliance and research integrity.
·
Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation.
·
Relevance to forensic medicine and forensic
sciences.
·
Clarity of presentation and consistency between
results and conclusions.
·
Appropriate use of scientific literature and
references.
Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based
evaluations.
Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of
Interest
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or
personal conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.
Reviewers with relevant conflicts of interest must decline the review
invitation or notify the Editorial Office.
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated
as confidential.
Reviewers must not disclose unpublished material, use manuscript information
for personal benefit, or upload confidential manuscript files to publicly
accessible artificial intelligence platforms.
The journal follows the COPE
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or
Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or Editorial Board
members undergo the same peer review standards as other submissions.
To prevent conflicts of interest, such manuscripts are assigned to an independent
Handling Editor who has no conflict of interest with the submitting
author.
The submitting editor must not participate in reviewer selection, manuscript
evaluation, or editorial decision-making and must not have access to confidential
peer review information.
The final editorial decision is made by an independent editor with
appropriate authority and no conflict of interest.
Editorial Decisions and Revisions
Following peer review, reviewers provide recommendations, which may include:
·
Accept
·
Minor Revision
·
Major Revision
·
Reject
The Editor-in-Chief or the designated independent editor evaluates the
reviewer reports and makes the final editorial decision.
If reviewer recommendations conflict or further expertise is required,
additional independent reviewers may be invited.
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a
point-by-point response addressing the reviewers' comments within the specified
deadline.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further
evaluation.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final responsibility for
editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated
independent editor.
Review Timelines
Reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluations within 15
days of accepting the review invitation.
The overall evaluation period may vary depending on reviewer availability,
manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the need for additional
expert opinions.
The Editorial Office monitors the peer review process to minimize
unnecessary delays.
Confidentiality and Research Integrity
All individuals involved in the peer review process must maintain
confidentiality and comply with the journal's ethical standards.
Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image
manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical violations
are evaluated according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Plagiarism and
Ethical Misconduct policies and relevant COPE guidance.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written and reasoned
request to the Editorial Office at noforjournal@gmail.com,
together with relevant supporting information.
Appeals are evaluated impartially by the Editor-in-Chief or, when a conflict
of interest exists, an independent editor who was not involved in the original
decision.
An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration or acceptance of
a manuscript.
Transparency of Peer Review
If a published article undergoes a peer review process that differs from the
journal's standard double-blind procedure, the type of review and the reason
for the exception will be disclosed in the published article.
The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity, independence, and
transparency of its editorial and peer review processes.