Peer Review Process
Future Journals employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This means that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This model is widely recognized as the gold standard for ensuring objective, unbiased evaluation of research.
Overview of the Review Model
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| Review Model | Double-Blind Peer Review |
| Minimum Reviewers Per Manuscript | 2 independent expert reviewers |
| Reviewer Selection Criteria | Subject expertise, no COI, active publication record |
| Review Deadline Given to Reviewers | 21 days (extendable to 30 days upon request) |
| Decision Timeline (from submission) | Target: 45 days for first decision |
| Open Peer Review Option | Available upon author request (published alongside article) |
Step-by-Step Peer Review Lifecycle
- Submission Received — Automated acknowledgment sent to corresponding author with tracking ID.
- Technical Pre-Check (1–3 days) — Editorial staff verify: correct file format, complete author information, ethics statements, reference style, and completeness of submission.
- Plagiarism Screening (1 day) — iThenticate similarity report generated. >15% similarity: returned to authors. <15%: proceeds.
- Scope Assessment by Editor-in-Chief (2–5 days) — Desk rejection issued if the manuscript is out of scope, of insufficient quality, or does not meet minimum standards.
- Associate Editor Assignment — Manuscript assigned to the most appropriate Associate Editor based on keyword matching and expertise.
- Reviewer Selection & Invitation (3–7 days) — Potential reviewers identified via: editorial board database, author-suggested reviewers (max 3), Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Connect, and ResearchGate. Reviewers with COI are excluded.
- Peer Review Period (21–30 days) — Reviewers conduct detailed evaluation and submit reports covering: scientific soundness, originality, clarity, methods appropriateness, data integrity, and ethical compliance.
- Editor Recommendation — Associate Editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Editorial Decision — One of four decisions: Accept As Is; Minor Revision Required; Major Revision Required; Reject. Decision letter sent to corresponding author with full reviewer comments.
- Revision Review — Revised manuscripts reviewed by the original Associate Editor (and original reviewers for Major Revisions). Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter.
- Final Acceptance — Accepted manuscript moves to copyediting and typesetting.
Reviewer Recognition
Future Journals recognizes and appreciates the invaluable contribution of peer reviewers. All reviewers receive: an official acknowledgement letter, credit on Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition, and recognition in the journal’s annual “Thank You to Reviewers” publication.
Become a Reviewer
We welcome applications from qualified academics who wish to contribute to the peer review process. Requirements: doctoral degree or equivalent expertise; active publication record; ORCID iD; no conflict of interest with manuscript authors.