Peer Review Process

All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the technical editors, who consider scientific relevance, originality, and the journal’s scope.

Next, references are verified with regard to PFB standards and a plagiarism check is conducted.

Manuscripts with previous publication of abstracts, academic these s/dissertations or preprints are still considered original and unpublished.

PFB considers plagiarism to include redundant publication (partial or full copying of a previously published text), text recycling (sections of the same text appear in multiple publications by the same author without attribution of authorship, also known as self-plagiarism), and using literal or paraphrased excerpts without citation.

Avoid using non-original figures. If they are essential to the manuscript, obtain use authorization from the copyright holder and forward this permission to the Editor.

After initial assessment, manuscripts are subjected to double-blind peer review by ad hoc reviewers. In this stage, reviewers are advised to report potential conflict of interest.

-----------------------------

Guidelines reviewers

Peer reviewers should assess the technical quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript’s scientific contributions.

Manuscripts should contain.

• A concise and well-structured introduction.
• Clear, well-defined objective(s).
• Concise and complete methodology.
• Consistent and adequate statistical analysis.  
• Clear and objective results.
• Critical discussion of findings with reasoning based on the scientific literature.
• Conclusions highlighting the unique contributions of the work.
• Appropriate references (number and relevance).

Reviewers shall indicate whether the manuscript should be: 1) accepted without revision; 2) accepted with minor revision; 3) accepted only after major revision; 4) rejected.

Only manuscripts with at least two positive reviews in the evaluation process will be considered for publication.

Conflicting reviews will be analyzed by Editorial Committee; the Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision on whether the manuscript is approved or rejected.

The reviewers’ opinions will be forwarded to the authors to implement the recommendations. Authors must justify any recommendations which were not followed, and respond to all points noted by the reviewers.

The Associate Editors will evaluate the revised manuscripts with regard to reviewer recommendations; the Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision on whether the manuscript is approved or rejected.