peer review

In order to ensure the minimal requirements for the articles to be published, we have inserted a strict reviewing process, using the double-blind technique (two reviews per article, anonymus ones). Our reviewers are experts in the field of public order and national security and forensics.

Quality is a must

Our internal procedure include multiple steps in order to have a proper evaluation process of every article that is sent to us.

1.Articles received by any of the editorial members are initially sent to the editor-in-chief for the primary evaluation (mainly to identify the compatibility with our publication), but other criterias are also included.

2.The editor-in-chief decides the two rewiewers to evaluate each article and sends them, via e-mail, the article to be analised. The reviewers do not know the author's identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review.

3.The referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. There can be four types of recomendations: to unconditionally accept the manuscript, to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways, to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission and to reject it outright.

4.The editor evaluates the referees' comments before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments. The names of the referees remain unknown to the authors.

A decision regarding the publication of the final shape of the article is taken by the editor, after the eventual changes are made.

Forensic Science Forum - Peer Review Procedure