These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in evaluating manuscripts
submitted to Novel Forensic Research (NOFOR) and to ensure that peer review is
conducted fairly, objectively, thoroughly, and promptly.
For detailed information about the review model, editorial decisions, and
the handling of manuscripts submitted by editorial board members, please refer
to the journal's Peer Review Policy.
Our Philosophy on Peer Review
Novel Forensic Research follows a double-blind peer review process in which
the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential.
Reviewers are expected to provide independent, constructive, and
evidence-based evaluations within the requested timeframe. Reviewers are
generally requested to submit their reports within 15 days
after accepting the invitation.
Reviewers and authors must not communicate directly regarding manuscripts
under evaluation.
All reviewers are expected to follow the COPE
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Importance of Peer Review
Peer review plays an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality,
reliability, originality, and ethical integrity of research published in
forensic medicine and forensic sciences.
Reviewers provide expert assessments that assist editors in making informed
decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality and clarity of their
manuscripts.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, impartially,
confidentially, and within the agreed review period.
Manuscripts should be assessed according to the following criteria:
·
Scientific originality and contribution to
forensic sciences.
·
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
·
Appropriateness of the study design and
methodology.
·
Accuracy and reliability of data collection,
analysis, and interpretation.
·
Compliance with applicable ethical and legal
requirements.
·
Appropriate handling of forensic evidence,
biological materials, and sensitive information, where relevant.
·
Clarity of presentation and consistency between
findings and conclusions.
·
Adequacy and relevance of the scientific references.
Reviewers should identify major strengths and limitations and provide
specific, constructive recommendations.
Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, inappropriate
image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical
concerns must be reported confidentially to the Editorial Office.
Confidentiality and Use of Artificial
Intelligence
Peer review is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not disclose,
distribute, or discuss unpublished manuscripts or associated materials with
unauthorized individuals.
Consultation with a colleague requires prior permission from the Editorial
Office.
Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, images, forensic records,
or other confidential materials to publicly accessible artificial intelligence
platforms or third-party systems that may compromise confidentiality.
Artificial intelligence tools, including generative AI and large language
models, must not be used to generate peer review reports.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality,
and integrity of their evaluations.
Before Accepting a Review Invitation
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether:
·
The manuscript falls within their area of
expertise.
·
They can provide an independent and unbiased
evaluation.
·
Any financial, professional, institutional, or
personal conflicts of interest exist.
·
They can complete the review within the
requested timeframe.
Reviewers who cannot undertake the evaluation should decline the invitation
promptly to avoid unnecessary delays.
If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial
Office.
Preparing the Review Report
Review reports must be clear, constructive, evidence-based, and
professional.
Reviewers should:
·
Identify issues requiring clarification or
revision.
·
Evaluate the appropriateness of the study design
and methodology.
·
Assess whether conclusions are supported by the
results.
·
Comment on the reliability and interpretation of
forensic findings, where applicable.
·
Suggest improvements that strengthen scientific
accuracy and clarity.
·
Identify relevant scientific literature when
appropriate.
Comments must focus on scientific content and must not include hostile,
discriminatory, or derogatory language.
Reviewers are not expected to provide comprehensive language editing, but
may identify language problems that affect scientific understanding.
Review reports must be submitted through the journal's online manuscript
management system.
Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the evaluation, reviewers are asked to provide one of the
following recommendations:
1. Accept
2. Minor
Revision
3. Major
Revision
4. Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by
the Editor-in-Chief or, where applicable, an independent editor authorized to
handle the manuscript.
Final Checks Before Submitting a Review
Before submitting their reports, reviewers should ensure that:
·
Their comments are clear, constructive, and
scientifically justified.
·
Major methodological and ethical concerns have
been identified.
·
Recommendations are supported by appropriate
explanations.
·
Comments are relevant to forensic medicine and
forensic sciences.
·
Confidential comments intended only for editors
are entered in the appropriate section.
·
The report contains no information that could
compromise reviewer anonymity.
·
The evaluation has been checked for accuracy,
clarity, and completeness.
All reviewers are expected to maintain professional standards and contribute
to a fair and scientifically rigorous editorial process.