1) Review model and confidentiality
FASOC uses an anonymized review model appropriate for social sciences. In practice, this means reviewer identities are protected, and the editorial office controls all communication between authors and reviewers. Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial materials and are not published or shared outside the review process without permission.
Confidentiality is not “nice to have”. It reduces pressure, protects honest critique, and prevents retaliation or influence. Editors are expected to defend reviewer confidentiality and handle reviewer comments responsibly.
2) What happens after submission
- Editorial screening (desk review). The editor checks scope fit (defence/security/civil–military focus), basic structure, citation integrity, and whether the paper has a clear research question and evidence. Papers that are off-topic, purely opinion, or fundamentally under-sourced can be rejected here.
- Reviewer selection. Reviewers are chosen for topic competence and independence. Conflicts of interest are screened. If a conflict exists, the reviewer is not used.
- External review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s argument, evidence, and contribution. Reports should be specific and constructive, not personal.
- Editorial decision. The editor weighs the reports and makes a decision. Review does not “vote”; the editor decides, and must be able to justify the decision.
- Revision cycle (if invited). Authors submit a revised manuscript plus a response document explaining exactly how each point was addressed (or why not).
3) What reviewers are asked to assess
- Research question: is the problem defined early and precisely, or does the paper drift?
- Contribution: what is new-data, interpretation, theory, method, or synthesis?
- Evidence and methods: are sources identifiable, selection logic explained, and limits acknowledged?
- Traceability: do citations allow a reader to verify claims, especially factual assertions?
- Concept clarity: are key terms (security, defence, oversight, governance) defined and used consistently?
- Balance and bias control: does the paper separate description from advocacy and avoid untestable claims?
- Ethics: are sensitive data handled responsibly; are disclosures made where needed?
Reviewers are also expected to flag suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or citation manipulation. If you’re recycling old text without disclosure, assume it will be noticed.
4) Possible decisions
- Accept (rare on first round): only minor edits needed.
- Minor revision: targeted fixes; argument is sound but presentation/citations need work.
- Major revision: core improvements required (methods clarity, evidence gaps, structure).
- Reject with resubmission option: promising idea, but the current version is not publishable.
- Reject: mismatch with scope or failure on evidence/method standards.
5) Conflicts of interest and reviewer ethics
Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline reviews where independence is compromised (financial ties, close collaboration, personal conflicts, or competitive relationships). Reviews should be based on the work’s merits, keep the manuscript confidential, avoid using unpublished material for personal advantage, and give credit where due.
Editors may remove defamatory language, personal attacks, or irrelevant content from reviews. Editing is for professionalism and safety, not for changing the substance of critique.
6) Appeals and complaints
Authors may appeal if they believe a decision relied on a factual misunderstanding or demonstrable procedural problem. An appeal is not “I disagree with the reviewer.” It must show exactly what was wrong and provide evidence. The editor may seek an additional independent review; final decisions remain editorial.