Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics - Editorial Procedure of Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics
Editorial Procedure of Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics
Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics follows a single-blind peer-review process, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers will also be asked to indicate how interesting and significant the research is. The Chief/Associate editors will make recommendations based on these reports, but only the Chairman will make a final decision to accept or reject an article.
Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts, however, in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may make a decision based on one peer review report.
Editors are subject to the Publisher's Code of Conduct below.
Editorial Procedure for topical collections
Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics also publishes topical collections. The peer review process of submissions associated with a topical collections may be handled by Guest Editors who are responsible for assigning two reviewers to each article and evaluating the reviews. Like Chief Editors and Associate Editors, Guest Editors make recommendations and request and evaluate revisions, but only the Chairman makes final decisions to accept or reject on any articles. Any articles submitted to the topical Collections by Guest Editors are also handled confidentially by Chief Editors or Associate Editors outside of the normal peer-review process of the topical collection to ensure that the evaluation of these articles is completely objective.
Guest Editors are subject to the Publisher's Code of Conduct below.
Appendix - Publisher’s Code of Conduct
In this Appendix the term “Journal” shall mean the journal for which the Chairman is editorially responsible, and the term “Editor(s)-in-Chief” shall mean the Chairman of the journal.
COPE
1. The Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editor(s) are expected to follow the COPE guideline entitled Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
2. The Publisher has responsibility to ensure that journals published by the Publisher adhere to editorial and publication ethics standards recommended by COPE, and the Publisher will support Editor(s) in their pursuit of adhering to such COPE standards. When dealing with publication and research ethics issues, Editor(s) are expected to follow COPE guidance and flowcharts or any guidance provided by the Publisher. The final course of action should be decided by the Editor(s). In difficult cases, or where there is no existing COPE guidance, the Editor(s) may seek advice from the Publisher, and some cases may need to be resolved in collaboration between Editor(s) and the Publisher. The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and general guidelines and flowcharts are available from the COPE website (http://publicationethics.org (this opens in a new tab)).
3. Editor(s) is expected to be aware of the editorial policies and information provided for authors by the Journal.
4. If there is more than one Editor-in-Chief for the Journal, it is understood that the responsibility concerning Editorship of the Journal is shared between them.
Peer review
5. Editor(s) is expected to comply with the Journal’s peer review policy (e.g. open, single- blind, double-blind).
6. Peer review is an essential component of the research publication. It aims to assess the validity of the reported research and suitability for journals’ scope and aims. In order to maintain the integrity of the published record the Editor(s) are expected to ensure that all manuscripts reporting primary research, or secondary analysis of primary research, accepted for publication in the Journal are peer reviewed by reviewers who are competent in a relevant field and/or have expertise in a relevant methodology, as judged by their publication record, and are free of potential bias. Such bias includes, but is not limited to, any recent collaboration between the peer reviewers and the authors of the manuscript. The requirement for Editor(s) to ensure absence of conflicts of interest amongst peer reviewers expressly applies to peer reviewers suggested by the authors of the manuscript.
7. Editor(s) is expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out in section 8 below.
8. Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a scientific rationale for the recommendations.
9. Editor(s) is expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
10. Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without two peer review reports. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.
Manuscript handling
11. Editor(s) is expected to provide a professional service to authors. Correspondence should be handled in a timely and professional manner. Arrangements should be in place to ensure editorial staff absences do not result in a reduced service to authors.
12. Editor(s) are expected to make full use of the online submission and peer-review system provided by the Publisher and, where necessary, maintain offline tracking systems, in order to preserve a full record of the peer review of each manuscript, where offline tracking is used, Editor(s) should upload offline records to the online submission and peer-review system as soon as possible.
Confidentiality
13. Editor(s) is expected to respect and uphold the confidential status of materials submitted to the Journal and should ensure that material remains confidential while under review.