Sponsors
First please make sure that you as a reviewer fulfill the requirement in the following table. Please refer to the text below for more information.
1. Reviewer eligibility:
Remark to co-reviewers: If you wish to have a co-reviewer, please ask the Section Editor to add this person to the list of reviewers.
2. Criteria for publication:
While reviewing a paper please use the following table as guidance.
3. More details on the criteria:
Remark: If the language and equations of a paper are difficult to understand or include many errors, we may recommend that authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a revision. These services can be found on the web using search terms like “scientific editing service” or “manuscript editing service.”
4. Additional points:
Declaring competing interests:
A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could be perceived as potentially interfering with, an objective assessment of a manuscript. Typically this could be due to a reviewer having a connection with one of the authors. Since OFJ operates a double blind review process, the reviewer will not know the identities of the manuscript authors. Yet, on some occasions the manuscript content or style may indirectly allow the reviewer to guess the author identity e.g. if the manuscript is about an existing OpenFOAM extension maintained by the author. In such cases, you should reject the request to review the article if your connection to one or more authors is too close. Examples could be that you have previously collaborated and published together or that you are in a conflict with one of the authors.
Do not accept a review assignment if you have a competing interest, or feel unable to give an objective assessment. If you are unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact the journal editor for advice. If we ask you to complete the review anyway, be sure to declare the competing interest when you submit your review.
If you find any information in any form on the identity of the author’s please report this immediately to your Section Editor (double blind review process).
Crediting collaborators
Co-reviewing is a great way to gain peer review experience under the mentorship of an experienced reviewer and we encourage this collaboration. If you plan to have help completing the review, e.g. from a PhD student, you should share your collaborator’s name with the journal and ask the Editor to add this person as an additional reviewer. Be careful not to include your or your collaborator’s name in the text of the review itself. Competing interests and confidentiality policies apply to all reviewers.
Confidentiality
Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information about submissions with anyone else unless previously agreed with the Editor. We expect that reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process.
Time to review
Aim to complete your review within 1 month. If you need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.
Qualifications of reviewer
If the reviewer feels unqualified for judging certain aspects or parts of the paper, this should be clearly stated in the comment to the editor.
THE GUIDELINES WRITTEN ABOVE ARE AN ADOPTION OF THOSE OF THE PLOS ONE JOURNAL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines
This document is work in progress. If you find some missing points, please contact the editors at editor<at>journal.openfoam.com
This is an OpenFOAM® Governance Initiative
Steering Committee members: OpenCFD Limited, Audi, ESI, FMGlobal, GM, Totalsim, TuDarmstadt, VW, Wikki
Devised and maintained by the Documentations Technical Committee supported by all Technical Committees: Automotive, HPC, Marine, Meshing, Multiphase, Nuclear, Numerics, Optimisation, Turbulence, Turbomachinery
Any usage of the name OpenFOAM® as well as the logo is being done with the full involvement of OpenCFD Ltd., trademark holder of OpenFOAM®.