Peer Review Policy
JMNS uses single-anonymized external peer review. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of human academic editors and are documented through a confidential editorial audit trail.
Editorial screening
Every submission is first assessed for scope, basic methodological adequacy, reporting completeness, ethical requirements, originality and compliance with journal policies. A manuscript may be declined at this stage without external review.
External peer review
Manuscripts that proceed beyond editorial screening are evaluated using single-anonymized peer review: reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, while reviewers may see author identities and affiliations.
A peer-reviewed JMNS article cannot be accepted until at least two independent external reviewer reports have been completed and any relevant conflict-of-interest assessment has been resolved.
Reviewer selection and independence
Reviewers are selected for subject-matter and methodological expertise. Editors consider institutional, collaborative, supervisory, personal, financial and other relationships that could reasonably compromise independence. A conflicted reviewer is not used for the relevant manuscript.
Author-suggested reviewers, when permitted, are advisory only. The handling editor retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and may use additional reviewers when specialist expertise or resolution of materially divergent reports is required.
Reviewer confidentiality and AI tools
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential comments and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share unpublished content or upload it to external generative-AI or automated systems when doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy or peer-review integrity.
AI systems do not act as reviewers and do not make editorial decisions. Scientific judgment and accountability remain human.
Revision and editorial decisions
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision. The handling editor evaluates the reports, the manuscript and the authors’ responses. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent for additional review when necessary.
When reviewer reports materially disagree, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional independent review or make a reasoned editorial judgment. Acceptance requires a documented human editorial decision.
Submissions from editors, board members or the publisher
Manuscripts involving the publisher, Editor-in-Chief, editors or Editorial Board members are handled by an independent, non-conflicted editor. The submitting individual does not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities beyond what is operationally necessary, manage the review or participate in the final decision.
Confidential editorial audit trail
JMNS retains a confidential, access-controlled record of the peer-review process in the JMNS Editorial Management System for editorial integrity, appeals, complaints and audit purposes. The record includes reviewer invitations and responses, reviewer identity and affiliation, conflict declarations, review reports, confidential comments to the editor, recommendations, editorial decisions, manuscript revisions and author response letters.
These records are not part of the public article and are handled under applicable privacy, confidentiality and records-retention requirements.
What is public after publication
JMNS does not routinely publish reviewer identities, reviewer reports or confidential editorial correspondence. The Version of Record displays the article’s editorial-history dates, including Received, Revised when applicable, Accepted and Published.
Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they identify a substantive scientific or procedural error. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance and, where feasible, is assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the disputed decision.