Peer Review Policy | Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability

Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) operates a rigorous, fair, timely, and confidential peer-review process designed to evaluate the originality, methodological soundness, scholarly significance, ethical integrity, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

The journal normally uses double-anonymous peer review. During external review, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, so far as reasonably practicable.

Peer review provides expert advice to the editors but does not transfer editorial responsibility to reviewers. Final decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the journal’s authorised editors in accordance with the evidence available, the reviewer reports, the journal’s editorial policies, and the manuscript’s overall scholarly merit.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process is intended to:

assess whether a manuscript makes an original and meaningful scholarly contribution;
evaluate the appropriateness and transparency of the research design and methods;
assess whether the evidence supports the results, interpretations, and conclusions;
identify methodological, analytical, ethical, legal, or reporting concerns;
evaluate the manuscript’s relevance to food systems, food safety, sustainability, resilience, governance, public health, or related fields;
help authors improve the accuracy, clarity, completeness, and scholarly value of their work;
support editors in making fair and informed publication decisions; and
protect the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

Peer review is not intended to guarantee that a manuscript is free from every error or to transfer responsibility for the work away from the authors. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, legality, ethical compliance, data integrity, references, and conclusions of their submissions.

2. Peer-Review Model

FSSS normally applies double-anonymous peer review to:

Original Research Articles;
Review Articles;
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses;
Short Communications;
Methods Papers;
Data Papers;
Case Studies;
Policy Analyses;
Perspectives; and
other substantive scholarly articles designated for external review.

Under the double-anonymous model:

reviewers are not provided with author names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, or other directly identifying information;
authors are not informed of reviewer identities;
reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors;
authors should not attempt to identify or contact reviewers; and
the Editorial Office will take reasonable steps to remove identifying information but cannot guarantee complete anonymity in every case.

Anonymity may be difficult to maintain where the manuscript concerns a highly specialised project, registered protocol, public dataset, preprint, previous conference presentation, unique research site, or extensively self-referenced research programme. The existence of such material does not automatically make a manuscript ineligible for double-anonymous review.

3. Content Not Normally Subject to Full External Peer Review

The following content may be assessed through editorial review rather than full external peer review:

Editorials commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief;
journal announcements;
publisher notices;
correction notices;
retraction notices;
expressions of concern;
responses formally requested by the editors;
brief Letters to the Editor;
certain Commentaries; and
other non-research material designated by the editorial leadership.

Such content may be sent for external review where the editors consider specialist assessment necessary. The review status of published content should be identified accurately and must not be misrepresented as externally peer reviewed where it received only editorial assessment.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submission undergoes an initial assessment before external peer review. This assessment may be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, a Deputy Editor, an Associate Editor, or another authorised member of the editorial team.

The initial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
uses an appropriate article type;
presents a sufficiently original and substantive contribution;
meets minimum methodological and reporting standards;
complies with the journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
contains the required ethical, authorship, funding, competing-interest, data-availability, and AI-use declarations;
has been prepared appropriately for double-anonymous review;
follows an applicable reporting guideline;
contains references of sufficient relevance and integrity;
is written clearly enough to permit scholarly assessment; and
does not present an apparent research-integrity, legal, safety, or ethical concern that prevents further review.

The journal may conduct technical checks, reference checks, image checks, similarity screening, data-integrity checks, or other appropriate assessments before, during, or after peer review.

5. Editorial Rejection without External Review

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review where the responsible editor determines that it:

falls outside the journal’s scope;
does not provide a sufficiently original or significant contribution;
has fundamental methodological weaknesses that cannot reasonably be corrected through revision;
does not explain its broader relevance to food systems, safety, or sustainability;
is primarily promotional, commercial, polemical, or descriptive rather than scholarly;
contains inadequate, unverifiable, fabricated, manipulated, or misleading evidence;
does not comply with applicable ethical or legal requirements;
substantially duplicates previously published or submitted work;
is insufficiently developed for external evaluation;
does not meet essential reporting requirements after an opportunity for technical correction;
contains language or organisation that prevents reliable assessment; or
otherwise fails to meet the journal’s editorial standards.

Editorial rejection without external review is not a judgement that the subject itself lacks value. It means that the submitted manuscript is not suitable for further consideration by FSSS in its current form.

6. Assignment to a Handling Editor

A manuscript selected for further consideration is assigned to an editor with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

The handling editor is responsible for:

confirming that the manuscript is suitable for external review;
identifying appropriately qualified and independent reviewers;
evaluating reviewer conflicts of interest;
monitoring the progress and quality of the review process;
assessing reviewer reports critically rather than applying them mechanically;
requesting additional review where necessary;
communicating revision requirements clearly; and
making or recommending an editorial decision within the scope of their authority.

The Editor-in-Chief retains authority to reassign a manuscript where necessary to protect independence, manage workload, address a conflict of interest, or obtain more appropriate expertise.

7. Number of Reviewers

Substantive research and review manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be invited where:

the manuscript is highly interdisciplinary;
specialist statistical, qualitative, economic, technical, legal, ethical, or methodological expertise is required;
the initial reviewer reports are substantially inconsistent;
a reviewer raises a serious research-integrity concern;
a revised manuscript contains substantial new analyses;
a previous reviewer is no longer available; or
the editor considers additional independent advice necessary.

In exceptional circumstances, an editor may reach a decision after one substantive external report where repeated attempts to obtain an additional suitable reviewer have failed and the editor possesses sufficient relevant expertise. Such decisions should be documented internally and must not compromise the journal’s standards.

8. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their subject knowledge, methodological expertise, publication record, professional experience, independence, availability, and ability to provide a constructive and evidence-based assessment.

Where possible, reviewers should:

have demonstrable expertise relevant to the manuscript;
be independent of the authors and their institutions;
have no recent or close collaborative relationship with the authors;
have no direct financial, commercial, personal, professional, or intellectual conflict concerning the work;
be able to assess the manuscript within the requested timeframe;
agree to maintain confidentiality; and
comply with the journal’s ethical requirements for reviewers.

The journal seeks appropriate geographical, disciplinary, methodological, institutional, and career-stage diversity when selecting reviewers, while giving priority to relevant expertise and independence.

9. Verification of Reviewer Identity

The Editorial Office may take reasonable steps to verify a reviewer’s identity, expertise, affiliation, contact details, publication history, and independence.

Verification measures may include:

checking institutional webpages and publication records;
reviewing ORCID or other researcher identifiers;
using institutional email addresses where available;
confirming that the reviewer’s expertise corresponds to the manuscript;
examining unusual reviewer recommendations or contact information;
checking for connections with the authors; and
requesting further identity confirmation where necessary.

The journal may decline or cancel a reviewer invitation where the reviewer’s identity, independence, qualifications, or contact details cannot be verified satisfactorily.

10. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers. Suggested reviewers are advisory only, and the editors are under no obligation to invite them.

Authors must not suggest:

current colleagues from the same institution;
recent former colleagues where independence may be impaired;
current or recent research collaborators;
supervisors, students, mentors, or close professional associates;
family members or personal associates;
individuals with a direct financial or commercial interest in the work;
individuals involved in preparing the manuscript;
individuals whose impartiality may reasonably be questioned; or
fabricated individuals, false identities, or reviewers using misleading contact details.

Authors should normally provide the suggested reviewer’s full name, institutional affiliation, institutional email address, ORCID identifier where available, and relevant area of expertise.

Manipulation of reviewer suggestions, fabricated reviewer identities, false email accounts, undisclosed relationships, or attempts to control the peer-review process may be treated as serious publication misconduct.

11. Requests to Exclude Reviewers

Authors may identify individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript and provide a concise professional reason.

The editors will consider reasonable exclusion requests but are not obliged to honour them where:

the request would prevent the journal from obtaining necessary expertise;
the stated reason is insufficient;
the exclusion appears intended to avoid legitimate criticism;
the requested exclusions are excessive; or
another compelling editorial reason requires independent assessment by the identified expert.

The editors remain responsible for reviewer selection.

12. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstance that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their independence or impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

current or recent employment at the same institution as an author;
recent collaboration, co-authorship, supervision, or mentorship involving an author;
a close personal, family, or adversarial relationship with an author;
direct academic competition;
financial interests connected to the manuscript’s findings;
consultancy, advisory, patent, licensing, or commercial relationships;
involvement in the research, data, intervention, product, policy, or technology under evaluation;
prior access to or participation in preparation of the manuscript;
a strongly held position that prevents objective assessment; or
another circumstance that could compromise independent judgement.

A potential conflict does not always require exclusion. The reviewer must disclose it to the editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.

Reviewers who are uncertain whether a conflict exists should disclose the circumstances rather than making the decision independently.

13. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer invitations, supplementary files, data, correspondence, editorial decisions, and reviewer reports are confidential materials.

Reviewers must not:

share the manuscript or associated materials with another person without prior editorial permission;
discuss the manuscript outside the authorised review process;
use unpublished information, data, ideas, methods, or conclusions for personal, professional, competitive, financial, or commercial advantage;
contact the authors directly;
retain confidential files longer than necessary;
post the manuscript or review publicly;
reveal information about the manuscript’s existence, content, status, or editorial outcome; or
attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identity.

After completing the review, reviewers should delete or securely dispose of manuscript files and related confidential material, except where retention is authorised by the journal for a legitimate reason.

The journal may disclose confidential information where required by law, necessary to investigate suspected misconduct, essential to protect individuals or the public, or otherwise permitted under an applicable editorial policy. Any disclosure should be limited to what is reasonably necessary.

14. Assistance from Colleagues or Trainees

A reviewer must not delegate a review to a colleague, trainee, student, assistant, or other individual without prior permission from the handling editor.

Where permission is granted:

the additional contributor must agree to the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements;
their name and contribution must be disclosed to the editor;
the invited reviewer remains responsible for the final report;
the contribution may be acknowledged in the journal’s internal records; and
the manuscript must not be distributed more widely than necessary.

Undisclosed delegation or ghost review may be treated as a breach of reviewer ethics.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly communications. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, abstract, table, figure, dataset, supplementary file, reviewer report, or identifiable extract into a publicly accessible or external generative-AI system where confidentiality, data protection, copyright, or retention cannot be assured.

A reviewer who wishes to use an AI-assisted tool in connection with a review must obtain prior written permission from the journal unless the tool is explicitly approved under the journal’s current policy.

Any permitted use must:

comply with confidentiality, privacy, data-protection, and copyright requirements;
avoid transmitting unpublished or identifiable manuscript content to unauthorised systems;
be disclosed to the editor;
be limited to a legitimate supporting function;
be checked critically by the reviewer; and
not replace the reviewer’s independent scholarly judgement.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, confidentiality, and intellectual content of their reports. AI-generated statements may be incorrect, incomplete, fabricated, biased, or unsupported and must not be accepted without verification.

16. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

accept assignments only where they possess sufficient expertise;
respond to invitations promptly;
declare relevant conflicts of interest;
complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
assess the manuscript fairly and independently;
base criticism on evidence and scholarly reasoning;
identify major strengths and weaknesses clearly;
evaluate the appropriateness of the methods and analysis;
assess whether conclusions are supported by the results;
identify incomplete reporting or missing methodological information;
comment on ethical, safety, data, authorship, citation, or integrity concerns;
distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
avoid hostile, discriminatory, dismissive, or defamatory language;
avoid imposing personal stylistic preferences unnecessarily;
avoid requesting irrelevant citations or inappropriate citation of their own work;
protect the confidentiality of the manuscript; and
inform the editor promptly if they cannot provide a reliable review.

17. Scope of the Reviewer Assessment

Reviewer reports should address, where applicable:

relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
originality and scholarly contribution;
clarity of the research question or objective;
appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
adequacy of the research design;
sampling, recruitment, materials, data sources, and measurement;
statistical, qualitative, computational, economic, or environmental analysis;
ethical approval, consent, biosafety, and regulatory compliance;
data quality, reproducibility, transparency, and availability;
accuracy and completeness of the results;
interpretation of findings;
acknowledgement of limitations and uncertainty;
relevance to food systems, safety, sustainability, policy, or practice;
quality and balance of the literature review;
compliance with reporting guidelines;
clarity of tables, figures, equations, and supplementary materials;
consistency between the abstract, text, tables, figures, and conclusions; and
overall suitability for publication.

18. Constructive and Professional Reviews

Reviews should be specific, respectful, and directed at the scholarly work rather than the personal characteristics of the authors.

Reviewer comments must not contain:

personal attacks;
insults or ridicule;
discriminatory language;
unsupported allegations;
threats or coercion;
demands for irrelevant citations;
requests intended primarily to increase a reviewer’s citation count;
commercial promotion;
instructions unrelated to improving the manuscript; or
information that unnecessarily reveals the reviewer’s identity.

The editors may edit, withhold, or disregard inappropriate reviewer comments while preserving the substantive academic content where possible.

19. Citation Suggestions by Reviewers

Reviewers may recommend additional literature where it is directly relevant and necessary to improve the manuscript.

Reviewers must not:

request citation of their own work merely to increase citations;
request excessive citation of a particular author, journal, institution, or research group;
recommend sources unrelated to the manuscript;
condition a favourable recommendation on inappropriate citation changes; or
use citation requests to manipulate scholarly metrics.

Authors are not required to add every reference suggested by a reviewer. The handling editor will evaluate disputed citation requests.

20. Research-Integrity Concerns Raised during Review

Reviewers should notify the editor confidentially if they suspect:

plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;
duplicate or redundant publication;
fabrication or falsification of data;
inappropriate image manipulation;
citation manipulation;
undeclared conflicts of interest;
authorship irregularities;
peer-review manipulation;
ethical approval or consent problems;
unsafe or unlawful research practices;
misleading statistical or analytical reporting;
undisclosed use of artificial intelligence;
potential harm to participants, communities, animals, food systems, or the environment; or
another significant integrity concern.

Reviewers should provide the editor with specific evidence or a clear explanation rather than making an unsupported accusation in comments sent directly to the authors.

The journal may pause the review process while a concern is examined under the applicable publication-ethics or research-misconduct policy.

21. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may normally recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision;
Minor Revision: limited changes are required and the central design and conclusions remain acceptable;
Major Revision: substantial changes, clarification, reanalysis, or additional evidence are required;
Resubmit for Review: the manuscript may have potential but requires extensive redevelopment and renewed assessment; or
Reject: the manuscript contains fundamental problems or is not suitable for publication in FSSS.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor may reach a different decision where the reports are unsupported, inconsistent, inappropriate, based on a misunderstanding, affected by a conflict of interest, or outweighed by other relevant evidence.

22. Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions include:

acceptance;
acceptance subject to specified technical corrections;
minor revision;
major revision;
resubmission for renewed review;
rejection with an invitation to submit a substantially new manuscript;
rejection; or
administrative closure where the submission cannot proceed.

The decision letter should explain the principal basis of the decision and, where revision is invited, distinguish essential requirements from optional recommendations as clearly as possible.

Acceptance is not determined by a simple numerical vote among reviewers. The editor considers the quality and relevance of each report, the manuscript itself, applicable policies, ethical concerns, and the journal’s editorial standards.

23. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the handling editor may:

evaluate the reasons for the disagreement;
seek clarification from one or more reviewers;
invite an additional reviewer;
consult a statistical, methodological, ethical, or subject specialist;
request clarification or additional information from the authors;
conduct an independent editorial assessment; or
refer the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief.

The existence of conflicting reports does not automatically require rejection or acceptance.

24. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should submit:

a revised clean manuscript;
a marked or tracked-changes version where requested;
a detailed point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers;
revised tables, figures, supplementary files, and declarations where applicable; and
a reasoned explanation for any recommendation that has not been followed.

Authors should respond professionally and substantively. They are not required to agree with every reviewer comment, but disagreements must be explained clearly and supported by evidence or methodological reasoning.

Revision does not guarantee acceptance.

25. Review of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript may be:

assessed by the handling editor without further external review;
returned to the original reviewers;
sent to one or more new reviewers;
referred to a specialist reviewer; or
examined through additional technical or integrity checks.

Minor revisions may be assessed editorially where the requested changes are limited and verifiable. Major revisions are normally returned for external review where substantive methodological, analytical, interpretive, or evidentiary issues remain.

Original reviewers are not guaranteed involvement in subsequent rounds.

26. Number of Revision Rounds

The journal does not impose an absolute number of permitted revision rounds. However, editors may reject a manuscript where:

essential concerns remain unresolved after reasonable opportunities for revision;
authors repeatedly fail to respond adequately;
revisions introduce new fundamental problems;
the manuscript’s central claims remain unsupported;
the required ethical or methodological information cannot be provided; or
continued review would not be a responsible use of editorial and reviewer resources.

27. Review Timelines

The journal aims to manage manuscripts efficiently while allowing sufficient time for rigorous assessment.

Indicative targets are:

initial editorial assessment: normally within 7–14 days;
reviewer invitation and assignment: initiated as soon as the manuscript is approved for external review;
reviewer report: reviewers are normally asked to respond within 21–28 days;
first decision after external review: normally within 6–8 weeks of reviewer assignment; and
assessment of revisions: dependent on the extent of revision and whether further external review is required.

These periods are targets rather than guarantees. Review duration may be affected by the manuscript’s complexity, subject specialisation, reviewer availability, holidays, additional integrity checks, author response time, or the need for further expert advice.

The Editorial Office may send reminders, replace unavailable reviewers, or proceed using appropriate alternative arrangements where delays become excessive.

28. Reviewer Withdrawal or Non-Response

A reviewer who cannot complete the review should notify the journal promptly.

The journal may cancel or replace a reviewer assignment where the reviewer:

declines the invitation;
does not respond within a reasonable period;
cannot meet the deadline;
identifies a conflict of interest;
provides an inadequate or inappropriate report;
breaches confidentiality;
uses an unauthorised third party or AI system;
engages in misconduct; or
is no longer considered sufficiently independent or qualified.

29. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, reviewers, publisher personnel, and individuals associated with Panorama Scholarly Group may submit manuscripts to FSSS.

Such manuscripts receive no preferential treatment and must satisfy the same scholarly, ethical, and peer-review standards as other submissions.

Where an editor or board member is an author:

they must not access reviewer identities or confidential editorial deliberations beyond what is available to an ordinary author;
they must not select reviewers;
they must not participate in the editorial decision;
the manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor;
the conflict and recusal must be documented internally; and
the published article may include an appropriate disclosure of the author’s editorial role.

30. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Special-issue manuscripts are subject to the same standards of editorial assessment, peer review, research integrity, ethics, and editorial independence as regular submissions.

Guest Editors may assist with topic development, reviewer recommendations, and editorial assessment, but:

they must disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
they must not handle manuscripts where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned;
they must not promise acceptance;
they must not bypass the journal’s standard review procedures;
they must not use commercial, institutional, or personal considerations to influence decisions;
they must not handle their own manuscripts or those of close collaborators; and
final editorial authority remains with the journal’s authorised editorial leadership.

A manuscript authored by a Guest Editor must be handled independently by an editor who is not involved in that manuscript.

31. Sponsored Research and Commercial Interests

Research funding, commercial sponsorship, institutional collaboration, Article Processing Charges, advertising, or special-issue sponsorship must not influence reviewer selection or editorial decisions.

Editors may seek additional review where a manuscript:

evaluates a commercial product or service;
was funded by a manufacturer, supplier, industry association, or interested organisation;
contains patent or licensing interests;
may affect regulatory or commercial decisions; or
presents another substantial financial conflict.

Relevant interests must be disclosed and considered when interpreting the work.

32. Reviewer Misconduct

Potential reviewer misconduct includes:

breaching manuscript confidentiality;
misappropriating unpublished ideas or data;
concealing a significant conflict of interest;
submitting a review under a false identity;
delegating the review without permission;
uploading confidential material to an unauthorised AI system;
providing abusive, discriminatory, or defamatory comments;
engaging in citation coercion;
contacting authors directly;
sharing or publishing a confidential review;
misrepresenting expertise or affiliation;
deliberately delaying review for competitive advantage; or
otherwise attempting to manipulate the editorial process.

Where reviewer misconduct is suspected, the journal may:

request an explanation;
disregard or remove the review;
appoint a replacement reviewer;
exclude the reviewer from future invitations;
remove the individual from an editorial or reviewer role;
notify the reviewer’s institution, employer, professional body, or another journal where justified;
preserve relevant records for investigation; and
take other proportionate action under the journal’s ethics policies.

33. Manipulation of Peer Review

FSSS does not tolerate manipulation or attempted manipulation of peer review.

Examples include:

fabricated reviewer identities;
false reviewer email addresses;
undisclosed reviewer–author relationships;
review rings or coordinated favourable reviewing;
impersonation;
unauthorised access to editorial systems;
attempts to influence or intimidate editors or reviewers;
submission through a third-party service that manipulates review;
coercive citation requests;
payment or inducement connected to reviewer recommendations; and
other interference with independent editorial assessment.

Suspected manipulation may result in suspension or rejection of the manuscript, investigation of related submissions, notification of institutions or other journals, retraction of a published article, or further action consistent with the evidence.

34. Reviewer Reports and Anonymity

Reviewer identities and reports are confidential and are not normally published with the article.

Reviewers should not sign their reports or otherwise reveal their identities under the journal’s double-anonymous model. Where identifying information is included inadvertently, the Editorial Office may remove it before transmitting the report to the authors.

The journal may retain reviewer reports, correspondence, decisions, and related records for legitimate editorial, auditing, integrity, legal, and preservation purposes.

35. Reviewer Recognition

The journal may provide reviewers with:

a confirmation of completed review;
a reviewer certificate;
an annual acknowledgement that does not connect a reviewer to a specific manuscript;
recognition through an authorised reviewer-contribution service; or
another appropriate form of professional recognition.

Recognition must not disclose confidential manuscript information, reviewer recommendations, author identities, or unpublished editorial outcomes.

Reviewers are not paid unless a specific written arrangement has been authorised in advance. The absence or presence of compensation does not alter the reviewer’s ethical responsibilities.

36. Withdrawal during Peer Review

Authors requesting withdrawal must submit a written explanation approved by all authors.

The journal may investigate where withdrawal appears intended to:

avoid responding to a research-integrity concern;
conceal simultaneous submission;
prevent examination of authorship irregularities;
move a manuscript after receiving confidential reviewer feedback without proper closure; or
interfere with an editorial investigation.

Withdrawal does not prevent the journal from retaining records or completing a necessary ethics investigation.

37. Appeals against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

a material factual or methodological error affected the decision;
a reviewer or editor had an undisclosed conflict of interest;
the manuscript was seriously misunderstood;
the journal’s published procedures were not followed; or
relevant evidence was not considered.

An appeal must:

be submitted through the official Editorial Office channel;
identify the manuscript and decision concerned;
state the specific grounds for appeal;
respond substantively to the decision and reviewer concerns;
avoid personal attacks or unsupported accusations; and
include relevant evidence.

Disagreement with the editorial judgement, a desire to obtain additional review, or dissatisfaction with rejection is not by itself sufficient grounds for appeal.

An appeal should be considered by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision where reasonably possible. The journal may uphold the decision, reopen review, obtain an additional opinion, or take another appropriate action.

Further details are provided in the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

38. Complaints about Reviewers or the Review Process

Authors may raise a concern where reviewer comments appear:

abusive, discriminatory, defamatory, or unprofessional;
affected by an undisclosed conflict of interest;
factually or methodologically unreliable;
intended to manipulate citations;
inconsistent with confidentiality requirements;
based on a mistaken manuscript or unrelated material; or
otherwise inconsistent with this policy.

The Editorial Office will assess the concern and may edit or remove inappropriate comments, disregard a report, obtain another review, investigate the reviewer’s conduct, or take another proportionate action.

A complaint does not automatically invalidate the reviewer’s substantive academic concerns.

39. Post-Publication Review and Editorial Action

Completion of pre-publication peer review does not prevent later examination of a published article.

Where a post-publication concern arises, the journal may:

seek additional expert review;
request data, code, protocols, ethics documentation, or other supporting materials;
invite the authors to respond;
consult institutions, funders, regulators, or other journals where appropriate;
publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction; or
take another action necessary to maintain the scholarly record.

The fact that an article passed peer review does not prevent correction or retraction where reliable evidence later demonstrates a significant problem.

40. Data Protection and Record Retention

Personal and editorial information collected during peer review is processed for legitimate scholarly-publishing, administrative, integrity, legal, security, and preservation purposes.

The journal may retain:

submission files;
author and reviewer information;
reviewer invitations and responses;
review reports;
editorial correspondence;
decision records;
conflict-of-interest disclosures;
integrity-screening records; and
other information necessary to document the publication process.

Access should be limited to authorised individuals and managed in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, security, and legal requirements.

41. Editorial Independence

Peer review and editorial decisions must remain independent of:

Article Processing Charges;
an author’s ability or inability to pay;
waiver or discount requests;
advertising or sponsorship;
institutional prestige;
nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, political position, or other irrelevant personal characteristics;
commercial relationships;
publisher preferences unrelated to scholarly standards; and
personal relationships or external pressure.

The publisher supports the journal’s infrastructure and publication processes but must not improperly determine the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

42. Standards Informing This Policy

The journal’s peer-review procedures are informed by internationally recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance from:

These external resources inform the journal’s policies but do not replace the specific procedures stated on the FSSS website.

43. Policy Review and Amendments

FSSS may revise this policy to reflect changes in scholarly-publishing standards, technology, legal requirements, research-integrity risks, or journal operations.

The version of the policy applicable to a manuscript is normally the version in effect during the relevant stage of editorial processing. Material procedural changes affecting an active manuscript should be communicated where necessary.

44. Contact

Questions concerning peer review, reviewer eligibility, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, revision requirements, appeals, or suspected manipulation should be directed to the FSSS Editorial Office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

Correspondence concerning an existing submission should include the manuscript title, submission identification number, corresponding author’s name, and a concise explanation of the enquiry.