Acceptance Criteria

If a manuscript satisfies the journal’s requirements and represents a significant contribution to the published literature, the Editor may recommend acceptance for publication in the journal.

Articles in MRMS must:

• be within the subject area of the journal’s scope
• be novel and original
• be important additions to the field
• describe technically rigorous research
• be of high interest to the journal’s audience

The journal particularly welcomes articles that demonstrate conceptual breakthroughs. If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, the Editor may recommend rejection.

Peer-Review by Reviewers

Reviewers are selected from an international pool and need not belong to MRMS’s Editorial Board. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal.

Reviewers are invited within 1-2 weeks of an article being submitted. Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor’s sole discretion.

Editorial Independence

As the owner of the journal, Japanese Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (JSMRM) has granted the journal’s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. JSMRM will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.

Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript’s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal’s other interests. The authors’ ability to pay any publication charges has no bearing on whether a manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal.   

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been made in error may lodge an appeal with the Editorial Office. Appeals are only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor. Appeals are considered carefully by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed where and when relevant.

Confidentiality in Peer-Review

[Editors]
The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors will not:

• disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure
• discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review
• use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
• use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.

[Reviewers]
As part of their responsibilities, reviewers agree to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts at all times. By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers agree not to:

• disclose their role in reviewing the manuscript
• reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript
• discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved in the review process
• involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or PhD student) without first requesting permission from the Editor
• use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
• use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.

[Authors]
By submitting their manuscript to the journal, the authors warrant that they will keep all correspondence about their manuscript (from the Editorial Office, editors and reviewers) strictly confidential.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

[Editors]
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, or having a financial stake in the work or its publication.

Members of the journal’s Editorial Board undertake to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor.

[Reviewers]
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence a reviewer’s ability to assess a manuscript impartially. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.
Editors try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest to the Editor, who will determine the best course of action.

Editors as Authors in the Journal

Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process. Within the journal’s online manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.

A manuscript authored by an editor of MRMS is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision making as any manuscript considered by the journal.