Peer Review Process

Guiding Principles

The Journal of Marine Studies is built on a foundation of trust and a commitment to advancing the field through high-quality, impactful, and ethically sound research. Our peer-review policy is guided by the following core principles, which we apply to every manuscript we handle.

  • Integrity: The core of scientific progress is trust. This principle ensures that all published research is accurate, original, and has been robustly scrutinized. This means that we actively check for issues like data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to protect the scientific record and maintain the journal's reputation as a reliable source of information.
  • Transparency: We believe in a transparent and predictable process. Authors, reviewers, and readers should not have to guess how decisions are made. This policy aims to provide a transparent roadmap of the manuscript journey, from submission to final decision, fostering trust and a sense of fairness in our operations.
  • Objectivity: To ensure fairness, a manuscript must be judged on its scientific merit alone, not on the reputation, institution, or background of the authors. We employ a double-anonymous review model, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This minimizes potential conscious or unconscious bias and focuses the evaluation strictly on the quality of the work.
  • Constructiveness: The goal of peer review is not merely to accept or reject a manuscript but to improve its quality. We expect our reviewers to provide feedback that is professional, respectful, and offers actionable suggestions. The process should be a collaborative effort to strengthen the manuscript and, by extension, the field of marine science.
  • Timeliness: Marine science is a dynamic and often urgent field of study. We recognize that delaying the dissemination of important research can hinder scientific progress. Our editorial office and editors are committed to an efficient process, ensuring manuscripts move through the review stages without unnecessary delays.

This policy operates in full alignment with the journal's open-access model under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.

The Peer-Review Process: A Detailed Step-by-Step Guide

All submissions to the Journal of Marine Studies undergo a multi-stage review process. The typical timelines provided are targets, and actual times may vary.

1.  Initial submission & pre-check (1-3 business days)

  • Author submission: The corresponding author submits the manuscript and all associated files (anonymized main text, figures, tables, supplementary materials) through our online portal.
  • Editorial office check: The editorial office performs a critical administrative and technical check. Manuscripts that fail this check are returned to the author for correction before the review process formally begins. The checks include:
    • Scope compliance: Does the manuscript align with the journal's aims & scope? For example, a paper on freshwater ecology with no marine relevance would be considered out of scope.
    • Formatting and completeness: Is the manuscript complete? Does it include an abstract, keywords, and properly formatted references? Manuscripts with significant formatting deficiencies will be returned.
    • Plagiarism screening: Every manuscript is screened using professional similarity software. A high similarity score (e.g., >25% overall or >5% from a single source, excluding references) will trigger a deeper editorial review for potential plagiarism.
    • Ethical declarations: We verify the inclusion of mandatory statements regarding funding sources, data availability, author contributions, and any potential conflicts of interest. This ensures ethical transparency from the outset.

2.  Editorial assessment (1-3 business days)

  • Editor assignment: The manuscript is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or a suitable Associate Editor with expertise in the manuscript's specific subject area.
  • Initial scientific evaluation: The assigned editor conducts a thorough assessment of the manuscript's core value. This is a critical filter to ensure that only the most promising papers are sent for external review. The editor makes one of three initial decisions:
    1. Send for peer review: The manuscript presents a well-defined research question, employs sound methodology, and offers results that are novel and of potential interest to our readership.
    2. Desk reject: The manuscript is rejected without external review. This is not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the research but an assessment of its fit for our journal. Common reasons include a lack of sufficient novelty (e.g., incremental findings), significant methodological flaws, results that do not support the conclusions, or a topic of very narrow interest. A desk rejection saves valuable time for both authors and reviewers.
    3. Return for revision: The manuscript shows promise but has correctable issues (e.g., unclear language, missing details in methods) that must be addressed before it can be fairly evaluated by external reviewers.

3.  Invitation to reviewers

  • The editor identifies and invites a minimum of two, and typically three, independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected from a global pool of researchers based on their publication record, specific expertise, and a lack of potential conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions. Editors use publication databases, their own professional networks, and reviewer databases to find suitable candidates.
  • Invitations are sent with the manuscript's abstract, asking reviewers to accept or decline within 3-5 days.

4.  The review stage (double-anonymous) (14-21 days)

  • Review period: Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are given access to the fully anonymized manuscript and are asked to provide their evaluation within 2-3 weeks.
  • Reviewer report: Reviewers submit their feedback via a structured online form. They are asked to comment on the manuscript's originality, significance, methodological rigor, the validity of the data and conclusions, and the clarity of presentation. The report consists of:
    • A clear recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
    • Confidential comments are accessible only to the editor, where they can be more candid about their assessment.
    • Anonymized, constructive comments for the authors. This is the most important part of the review; it should guide the authors in improving their paper, regardless of the final decision.

5.  Editorial decision (2-5 business days)

  • Decision-making: The editor synthesizes the feedback from all reviewers, weighs their arguments (a well-reasoned critical review often carries more weight than a brief, positive one), and combines this with their own expert assessment of the manuscript. If the reviews are highly contradictory, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to act as an arbiter.
  • Possible decisions:
    • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is. This is exceptionally rare.
    • Minor revisions: the manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires small corrections (e.g., clarifying a figure legend, correcting typos, rephrasing a sentence). The revised manuscript is typically checked only by the editor.
    • Major revisions: the manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes, such as re-analyzing data, conducting additional experiments, or significantly rewriting sections of the text. The revised manuscript is almost always sent back to the original reviewers for a second evaluation.
    • Rejection: The manuscript is declined for publication. This decision is made when there are fundamental flaws in the methodology or interpretation, the work lacks sufficient novelty, or the concerns raised by the reviewers are too extensive to be addressed through revision.

6.  Revision and re-submission

  • Author revisions: Authors receiving a revision decision are given a timeframe to make the requested changes (e.g., 3-5 weeks for major revisions, 2 weeks for minor).
  • Response to reviewers: Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a separate, detailed, point-by-point response letter. This letter must clearly explain how each comment from the reviewers and editor was addressed or provide a polite, scientific rebuttal if a particular suggestion was not followed. This response is critical for the editor to assess the revision.
  • Final acceptance: Once the Editor is satisfied that all scientific and formal concerns have been adequately addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication.

Graphical Workflow of the Peer-Review Process

Responsibilities of All Parties

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality: the manuscript is a privileged document. Reviewers must not share or discuss its content with others.
  • Declare conflicts of interest: Immediately declare any potential conflict that could compromise their objectivity. This includes recent collaborations (co-author in last 3 years), direct competition, financial interests, or close personal relationships with an author. If in doubt, ask the editor.
  • Provide objective feedback: Comments must be based on scientific evidence and be free of personal or professional bias. Criticize the work, not the author.
  • Be punctual: submitting reviews in a timely manner is crucial for maintaining an efficient process for the authors.
  • Act ethically: Adhere to the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Authors are expected to:

  • Guarantee originality and accuracy: Ensure their work is original and that all data are presented accurately. Data should not be fabricated or manipulated.
  • Uphold ethical standards: Adhere to all relevant ethical standards, including proper handling of animal subjects, obtaining necessary permits for fieldwork, and ensuring human subject consent and anonymity where applicable.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest: All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence their work.
  • Respond constructively: Address all reviewer comments respectfully and thoroughly in a response letter, even those with which they disagree.
  • Ensure data availability: Be prepared to provide underlying data and code upon reasonable request to support the reproducibility of their research.

The editorial team is expected to:

  • Uphold process integrity: Act as the primary guardian of the entire peer-review process.
  • Ensure fairness and respect: Treat all authors and reviewers with fairness, courtesy, and professionalism.
  • Protect anonymity: Take all reasonable steps to protect the identities of authors and reviewers during the double-anonymous review.
  • Make informed decisions: Ensure that all editorial decisions are based on sound scientific judgment and are not influenced by any external factors.
  • Investigate misconduct: Handle any allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, authorship disputes) with due process, following the established cope flowcharts and guidelines.

This policy will be reviewed annually to adapt to evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.