EDITORIAL & REVIEW POLICY

It is of utmost importance to JFME to deliver high-quality scientific publication that enhances public confidence in scientific developments. JFME supports the considerable efforts of the journal editors and the voluntary work of peer reviewers in maintaining academic integrity.

JFME assumes the responsibility to apply fair, rigorous evaluation, together with strict ethical policies and standards that ensure the publication of high-quality scientific works.

The ethical obligations of editors aim to provide an impartial review of all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each work on its own merits and without regard to the religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, experience or institutional affiliation of the author(s). The responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript lies with the editor and the editor-in-chief.

The responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor seek the advice of reviewers, chosen for their expertise in the field, good judgment, and the quality and veracity of the manuscripts submitted for publication.

However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are considered by the editors to be unsuitable for the journal, particularly if they fail the similarity check, are not written in acceptable English, or for other ethical reasons. Editors or any member of the editorial staff are ethically prohibited from disclosing any information about a manuscript under review to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought.

Regarding the ethical obligations of authors, they must consider not practicing plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism refers to the fact that the author republishes a work in its entirety or reuses it in a new one.

If the work represents a development, then the faithful replication of the text or results previously published by the author must clearly state the source. Authors must ensure that, if the material is taken from other sources (including their own published materials), the source is clearly cited and, where appropriate, permission for citation is obtained. Authors must avoid excessive self-citations and should not point out a particular work as a bibliographical reference if they have not read the cited work.

In order to comply with best practices, it is important to disclose conflicts of interest, and at the time of submitting the work, authors are encouraged to include a declaration regarding any conflicts of interest if there are financial connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that could raise the issue of bias regarding the work developed.

Regarding the ethics of reviewers, selected reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript or know that prompt evaluation will be impossible should immediately notify the editor or should ask the editor for the possibility of postponing the evaluation and to meet a reasonable return deadline as agreed with the editor.

Based on the standards of maintaining a high level of scientific expression, reviewers should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the theoretical and practical level, the connections and rationality of the interpretation.

Reviewers should respect the independence of the author's thinking, impartially evaluate the work and ensure the confidentiality of the evaluated information.

The reviewer's comments should be pertinent, explained clearly, built on his own judgment and founded in the specialized literature, being expressed in such a way that the comments are easily understood by the editor and the author. If reviewers notice substantial similarities between the content of the author's manuscript and published works or manuscripts submitted to other journals, they should state this in the review form.

a) Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the Editorial Office/Editors perform an initial assessment to check:

• fit with the journal’s aims and scope;

• compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and ethical requirements;

• basic scholarly quality and clarity of presentation;

• originality/similarity screening.

Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage without external review if they are out of scope, do not meet minimum quality standards, or raise ethical concerns.

b) Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated through double-blind peer review:

• the authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors;

• each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field who are not part of the

  journal’s editorial team;

• reviewers assess originality, methodological soundness, scholarly contribution, clarity, and relevance.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to consider:

• relevance to JFME;

• originality and contribution to the literature;

• methodological rigor and validity of results;

• quality of argumentation and logical structure;

• adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature;

• clarity of presentation and language quality.

c) Editorial Decision and Revisions

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial judgement. Decisions may include:

• accept;

• minor revision;

• major revision;

• reject.

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to reviewers comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation. If reviewers recommendations diverge substantially, the Handling Editor may seek an additional (third) review.

d) Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Board Submissions

Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest. Individuals with a conflict of interest must not be involved in the evaluation or decision-making process for the affected manuscript.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by members of the Editorial Board are handled by an independent editor (with no conflict of interest) and are reviewed by at least two external, independent reviewers. The author-editor has no role in the peer review or editorial decision for their own manuscript.

e) Originality and Prior Publication

Submission of a manuscript implies that:

• the work is original;

• it has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere.

If a manuscript is based on a working paper, preprint, or a conference presentation/paper, authors must disclose this at submission and ensure proper citation and transparency.

After publication, reuse of the article is governed by the journal’s open access licence. Any redistribution, translation, or adaptation must clearly cite the original Version of Record and must not imply endorsement by the authors or the journal.

f) Plagiarism & Similarity Screening

JFME screens submissions for originality using Grammarly. Similarity reports are assessed by the editors on a case-by-case basis. Overlap limited to references, properly quoted material, or standard methodological descriptions may be acceptable when correctly cited.

Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or other forms of misconduct will be handled in line with recognised publication ethics guidance. Proven serious misconduct may result in rejection and further editorial action.

g) Publication Dates

For published research articles, JFME displays at least the publication date, and where possible the submission and acceptance dates.

h) Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the Editorial Office. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief (sau unul dintre editorii asociati care nu au avut legatura cu procesul de recenzie) or a designated independent editor. Complaints about editorial processes are handled according to the journal’s ethics policy.