Peer Review Process

All papers that are published in FACETS undergo rigorous peer review with the exception of any editorial or introductory material that is clearly marked as such.

Criteria for Publication

Research published in FACETS must conform to ethical standards of experimentation and research integrity. Manuscript acceptance is based on the technical validity or soundness of the work as well as evidence of advancing knowledge.

Parameters & Procedures

Peer review for FACETS is single-blind, wherein the authors are identified to the reviewers, but the reviewers are not identified to the authors.

When a manuscript is submitted, the Editorial Office first screens the submission to ensure that it meets the minimum formatting requirements outlined in the Instructions to authors, that all of the supplied information is consistent and correct, and that the author questions have been answered appropriately. Once all of that is in order, the Editorial Office will assign the manuscript to the Editorial Board for consideration.

In most cases the Editor-in-Chief will assign a Subject Editor, Guest Editor, or Associate Editor (i.e., the handling Editor) who will confidentially invite reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. Authors may recommend preferred individuals to review their manuscript and may likewise state reviewers who they oppose, but ultimately, the handling Editor decides which reviewers are invited to review the manuscript.

Although the journal’s editors generally seek the advice of scientific peers, they may decline without review those manuscripts judged inappropriate for the journal. If the manuscript is accepted for review, the handling Editor will seek advice from a minimum of two reviewers selected for their knowledge of, and their experience in, the subject treated in the manuscript. Reviewers are invited, in confidence, to recommend on the suitability of the submission for publication based on the acceptance criteria and to provide comments to the authors and the Editors.

It is up to the discretion of the handling Editor whether a revised submission (following a decision of either major or minor revisions) will be put forward for re-review or if a decision can be made immediately based on the revision. If a second round of review is deemed necessary, the manuscript may be sent to the same reviewers as before, or may be sent to new reviewers. This is determined by the willingness of the original reviewer(s) to re-review the manuscript and (or) their availability.

The Subject Editor or Guest Editor, under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief, retains full responsibility for all decisions regarding a manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and Editors are expected to recuse themselves from the evaluation of papers in which they may have a real or perceived conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest may include financial interests in any aspect of a product or method under discussion, personal relationships (positive or negative) with authors, interest in competing research, or bias concerning the research.

Reviewer Authority

Reviewers are advisory to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and provide recommendations, but do not make decisions on the acceptance or rejection of a paper.

Ethical Considerations

All statements made by reviewers must be adequately supported so that the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board can make a well-informed decision regarding the paper.

Reviewers must ensure that reviews are written in a respectful, professional manner, and are free of any kind of prejudice, especially gender and racial stereotyping.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the content of any manuscript they handle. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted paper should not be used for the reviewer's own research except with the consent of the author(s).