Journal of Model Based Research · ISSN 2643-2811 · Open Access Pub
For Editors
An editor’s first judgment is not whether the work is right, but whether it has been made checkable.
This page sets out what the Journal of Model Based Research asks of the editors who handle its manuscripts. It follows the journal's Editorial Policies and adds the practical detail.
First reading
Scope and screening
The first question is whether the model carries the contribution. A manuscript is in scope when it advances how a system is formulated, assumed, represented, fitted, evaluated, quantified for uncertainty, inferred from or interpreted — whatever field it comes from.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Where a manuscript is out of scope, say so early and say why. A prompt, reasoned decline is more useful to an author than a slow one, and the editorial office will suggest the journal's own boundary as published in Aims and Scope.
Review
Choosing and briefing reviewers
Selection
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Modeling manuscripts often need two different kinds of reader: one who knows the method and one who knows the system being modeled. Choose for that combination rather than for subject proximity alone, and avoid reviewers with a working relationship to the authors.
Briefing
Tell the reviewer what the manuscript claims to contribute, so the review addresses that claim. Ask for an assessment of assumptions, specification, evidence and inference rather than for a verdict on novelty alone.
Review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Assisted review
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Decisions
Deciding, and recording the decision
The basis of a decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions are the editor's and are made independently of any fee, service, membership or role. Where reviewers disagree, the editor weighs the arguments rather than counting the recommendations, and may seek a further opinion.
Competing interests and recusal
An editor who is an author of a manuscript, or who has a competing interest in it, takes no part in handling it. Hand it to the editorial office for independent assignment and record that this was done.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. It is not shared, discussed outside the review process, or used in the editor's own work.
Explaining the outcome
Give authors the reasons. A decision letter that names the specific points that decided the outcome is what lets an author improve the work, whether here or elsewhere.
Integrity
Concerns, corrections and retractions
Where a concern is raised about a submitted or published manuscript, it is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original handling. Authors are given the opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached.
Where the record needs to change, the journal publishes a correction or a retraction notice that states what changed and why. The original article stays in the archive, marked so that its status is visible; nothing is removed.
Where to go next
The pages below hold the journal's policies, the guidance given to reviewers and the requirements authors are working to.
For Reviewers Instructions for Authors Aims and Scope Editorial Board