Guidelines for Reviewers
FOMM aims to provide a service to authors and the wider research community by making as much research available as possible, provided it meets our journal’s high standards for research conduct and ethical procedures and receives approval after peer review. This guidelines for reviewers are made based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, which also provide further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.
1. Peer review mode
FOMM uses double-blind peer review, which means:
- the reviewer’s name is NOT disclosed to the author
- the author’s name is NOT disclosed to the reviewer
2. Transparent peer review
With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout our peer review process, our editorial office has decided to fully implement the transparent peer review (TPR) process for all new submission from March 15, 2023.
For more detailed information, please refer to: https://fomm.amegroups.org/announcement/view/267.
3. The role of reviewers
If we need your help with appraising a manuscript, we will send you an email and ask you to accept or decline the invitation through our submission system. We ask for reviewers’ assistance in ensuring that any studies published in FOMM have been conducted properly, are scientifically credible and ethical, and have been reported in accordance with the appropriate guidelines (e.g., the CARE guidelines for case reports).
The Editorial Office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript, based on the reviewers' comments.
We welcome feedback from our reviewers. If you have any comments you wish to make relating to a manuscript you have reviewed or our decision on it, or relating to our review process in general, we would be pleased to hear from you.
4. Recognition for reviewers
FOMM’s publisher AME has entered into an official partnership with Publons, as of April 2020. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. FOMM’s peer review system is now integrated seamlessly into the Publons platform. As part of the review submission process, FOMM reviewers can now opt in to Publons, and the review data can be transferred to Publons upon submission. For more information, please refer to: https://fomm.amegroups.org/announcement/view/272.
5. To become a reviewer
If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, please send an email to the Editorial Office (fomm@amegroups.com) with a copy of your CV attached and an indication of your review interests.
The review could be conducted either via the OJS system (https://fomm.amegroups.org/login).
6. Guidance for peer reviewers
- When you provide a review via our submission system, please declare any competing interests you may have in relation to the article. These could be of a personal, professional, or financial nature.
- Before writing your review, you may find it helpful to browse our guidelines for authors. Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Criticism should be objective, not merely based on differences of opinion, and should aim to help the author improve their paper. Our journal requires authors to use reporting guidelines when writing a manuscript and to submit a completed checklist for each guideline. We encourage you to use this completed checklist included in the review task to aid in your review. Please first check whether the minimum information indicated in the checklist is included in the report and use the reporting guideline to aid in your assessment of the manuscript. If you find the checklist has been filled in incorrectly or that the manuscript does not actually include the information required by the checklist, as part of review comments, you could as well indicate what additional information must be reported. A reporting guideline may not be used to directly judge the quality of the methodology used in the study, but does suggest the kinds of questions that should be considered when designing a study.
- All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers should disclose to editors if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review and be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.
- If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. Please also encourage your colleagues to register as reviewers.
- If you have any serious concerns relating to the publication ethics of a manuscript (e.g., if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism), you can contact the Editorial Office in confidence.
We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journal so far.