JMVRA Peer Review: Transparent & Double-Blind

The Review Model

JMVRA runs transparent, double-blind peer review. During assessment, reviewers cannot see who the authors are and authors cannot see who the reviewers are; after publication the review is put on record so that anyone can confirm it happened. No research submission is published without first being reviewed. Check that a journal's review claims are verifiable before you submit.

Visibility at each stage: who sees what

Blinding has a limited but valuable job: the reviewer does not know who wrote the paper, so the judgement depends on the work itself and not on the seniority, institution or country of the authors. It cannot promise complete impartiality, since an unusual method or a habit of self-citation may occasionally give authorship away, yet it cuts down a well-documented source of bias considerably.

The Workflow Step by Step

Nine stages and three roles. Each stage’s colour indicates who takes action: Author Editor / office Reviewers

1. SubmissionAuthorThe portal receives the manuscript and issues a paper ID
2. Editorial screeningEditorChecks on scope, completeness, declarations and similarity
3. Reviewer assignmentEditorInvitations go to subject experts who have no conflict of interest
4. AssessmentReviewersAssessment of originality, method, evidence, clarity and ethics
5. RecommendationReviewersAdvice to accept, request minor revision, request major revision or reject
6. DecisionEditorThe editor weighs the reports, makes the decision and informs the author
7. RevisionAuthorA response addressing each point, plus a revised manuscript
8. Final decisionEditorOutcome: acceptance, another revision, or rejection
9. ProductionEditorial officeCopy editing, proofreading, DOI registration (on request) and publication

Open-Process Peer Review

JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). While review is under way it is double-blind, and once the decision is made it can be opened: a Transparent Peer Review Report on request, reviewer identity if the reviewer chooses, a public review history and a certificate anyone can verify.

A quick look at the transparent process

1. SubmissionPlagiarism, formatting and scope are all examined in the manuscript prior to any further step.
2. Reviewer assignmentThe Scholar9 portal assigns expert reviewers, selected by expertise, review history and availability.
3. Open, transparent reviewReviewers assess originality, method, significance and clarity under one of the three open models.
4. Decision and revisionThe outcome is acceptance, minor or major revision, or rejection, and authors revise in response to the written feedback.
5. Post-publication transparencyChosen reports, the names of reviewers who consent and the decision are published, and the certificate is issued.
6. Verify itThe review record on Scholar9 is open to anyone, who can compare it with the article.

Transparent peer review versus the traditional model

Acknowledging Reviewers and Editors

Formal recognition goes to reviewers and editorial board members who take part in transparent review, giving credit for effort that closed review keeps hidden.

• A formal Transparent Peer Review Certificate
• An appreciation letter for the reviewer or editor
• Checkable evidence of review work on Scholar9, which can support promotions, institutional records and research portfolios
• Credit for evaluation that is ethical, unbiased and careful

Join the reviewer panel

Editorial Screening

The editorial office first confirms that a submission can be reviewed at all, before inviting any reviewer. At this point a manuscript is returned or declined when:

• Its topic is outside the journal's subject coverage, or nobody suitable is available to review it
• It is unfinished, lacking an abstract, references, figures or required declarations
• Its similarity is above the limit set in the Plagiarism Policy
• It describes research involving human participants or animals but lacks the ethical approval and consent statements required
• It has been published already or is being reviewed by another journal

Screening safeguards the time of reviewers. Passing on a manuscript that could never have been published costs volunteers effort, and journals that omit this step wear out their pool of reviewers.

Reviewer Assignment

Selection of reviewers depends on subject expertise and methodological fit, and they must have no conflict with the work. Reviewers from the authors' institution, recent co-authors and anyone with a financial or personal stake in the result are avoided by the editor.

Reviewers receive invitations and are not simply assigned; they can decline, and are asked to say so quickly when the topic lies outside their expertise or their workload rules out a timely report. In a covering note, authors may propose reviewers or ask that some be excluded, giving reasons, although the editor is bound by neither.

Assessment Criteria

All reviewers respond to the same eight questions, giving papers a single standard of judgement:

Reviewers must make a clear distinction between changes needed to make the work sound and suggestions that authors can reasonably turn down.

The Meaning of Each Decision

Rejection does not reflect on the authors personally. Papers turned down by one journal are regularly published elsewhere once revised, and the reviewers’ comments are often the most valuable thing an author gets. Treat them as free expert advice.

Time to Acceptance and Publication

No guaranteed turnaround is advertised by the journal. How long review takes depends on how soon suitable reviewers agree, the time they need to read the work carefully, and the amount of revision involved. A journal promising a decision within a set number of days is effectively admitting that review does not decide the result.

The journal does commit to the following: screening starts when a paper arrives, authors learn the decision as soon as it exists, and enquiries that quote a paper ID receive replies. When you have heard nothing and your paper ID is several weeks old, contact [email protected] instead of resubmitting, since that produces a duplicate record.

Getting Ready for Blind Review

Double-blind review succeeds only when the manuscript itself gives away nothing about its authors:

• Take author names, affiliations and acknowledgements out of the main file
• Cite your previous work in the third person instead of writing "in our earlier study"
• Remove identifying metadata from the document's file properties
• Anonymise institution names in methods where that does not harm the science; if the setting is essential to the work, say so and leave the judgement to the editor
• Give funding statements and acknowledgements their own declarations section and keep them out of the body

When in doubt about whether something reveals your identity, ask the editorial office prior to uploading.

Responding to Reviewers

1. Reply to each comment on its own, in a separate response letter, following the order in which they were raised.
2. Say what you altered and where, citing section and page numbers.
3. If you disagree, state it and give your reasons with evidence. Reasoned disagreement is acceptable, but quietly ignoring a comment is not.
4. Mark the changes within the revised manuscript so that they are easy to locate.
5. Send back the revision inside the allotted time, or request an extension before the deadline passes.

Reviewers give their time voluntarily. A polite, substantive response letter takes a manuscript through a second round much more quickly than a defensive one does.

For Reviewers

• Take on only those assignments that match your expertise and your real available time.
• Regard the manuscript as confidential, and neither pass it on, cite it, nor draw on its findings before it appears in print.
• Never upload manuscripts to public AI services, as doing so breaches confidentiality.
• Disclose any conflict and step aside if one exists.
• Address the work and not the supposed author, and be specific by pointing to the text.
• Keep necessary changes apart from mere personal preferences.
• Take integrity concerns to the handling editor in private and avoid public accusations.

Researchers wishing to join the reviewer panel can email [email protected], stating their research area and linking to their publication record.

Integrity During Review

A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Editors and reviewers may not exploit unpublished material for personal gain, pass it to third parties, or hold up a competitor's work. A reviewer found to have broken confidentiality is taken off the panel.

If a research integrity concern arises during review, the editor looks into it before making a decision and lets the authors respond. Publication Ethics sets out the procedures.

Appeals

An author who thinks a decision was based on a factual mistake or misunderstanding can appeal in writing, quoting the paper ID and explaining with evidence exactly what was misunderstood. Where possible, an editor who took no part in the original decision considers the appeal, and the result is final. Simply disagreeing with a reviewer's judgement is not a ground for appeal. See Complaints and Appeals.

Related Pages

• Publication Guidelines
• Peer Review Policy
• Journal Transparency
• JMVRA Call for Papers – ISSN 2984-8911