Peer Review Process
All submissions are initially assessed by an Editor, who decides whether or not the article is suitable for peer review. Submissions considered suitable for peer review are assigned to two or more independent experts.
Peer review is the academic quality control process used to assess a manuscript before publication. It is based on experts/scientists close to the field of the publication, called referees, who assess at the publication draft according to the below criteria. The process can be iterative and aims to improve the quality of the manuscript.
To be accepted for publication, articles must satisfy the following criteria:
- Descriptions and results reported have not been published in another journal, book or conference procedure;
- The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English without jargon;
- The article adheres to our openness criteria;
- Where applicable, the research meets all standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The appropriate standards must be referred to in the publication with explanation why this particular standard was chosen;
- Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data;
- Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed correctly and are described in sufficient detail alongside all the supporting code and data (respectively licenses as Free Software and Open Data).
The journal operates a ‘single-blind’ peer review process, meaning that authors are known to reviewers throughout the review process. Reviewers are not known to authors during the review process unless they choose to sign their reviews.
Members of the editorial team/board are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. A competing interest must also be declared within the submission and any resulting publication.
Articles, Reviews and Metapapers
Three general principles guide the reviewing process at the Journal of Open Hardware:
1. All contributions must meet the criteria of novelty and openness according to our editorial guidelines: hardware projects must be compliant with the OSHW definition; additional software must be licensed (whenever possible) under OSI-approved licenses; and all the data discussed in the paper must be also provided in raw form and made publicly accessible according with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
2. For the specific case of Hardware Metapapers, reviews are focused on the accuracy and quality of the metadata rather than the hardware documentation per se, however there will be a (considerably high) level of quality of documentation required so that it is possible to review the project. The documentation assessment is guided by a checklist the editorial committee provides. We expect all metapapers to be able to pass after revisions, unless the hardware is extremely difficult to reuse and/or not sufficiently open and available as defined above and in the author guide.
3. In addition to openness, we have another important criterion: the benefit the hardware or method provides has to be something else than solely cost reduction. This policy aims to avoid the confusion of identifying Open Hardware projects with questions of market price which would distract potential users and contributors from other benefits.
After submission and initial screening, the contributed article, review, or metapaper is sent to two independent reviewers from our editorial board and their extended academic and professional networks. Each reviewer will attempt to access the hardware documentation and download the build-files based on the information in the submitted paper, following these steps:
1) Assessing the openness, novelty, and importance of the contribution to advance Open Hardware projects
2) Checking if the information in the article or metapaper is sufficient and correct, in particular with respect to the contributors, license, and limitations
Reviews are compared to provide a decision (accept, accept after minor revisions, re-review after major revisions, reject) and a checklist of revisions and suggestions are sent to the author, along with the reviews. Reviewers have the choice of signing their reviews or not.
You can also upload additional files containing further comments relevant to the review if you wish.
The journal is happy to accept submissions of papers that have been loaded onto preprint servers or personal websites, have been presented at conferences, or other informal communication channels. These formats will not be deemed prior publication. Authors must retain copyright to such postings. Authors are encouraged to link any prior posting of their paper to the final published version within the journal, if it is editorially accepted.
You should not accept a review assignment if you have a potential competing interest, including the following:
- Prior or current collaborations with the author(s);
- You are a direct competitor;
- You may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s);
- You might profit financially from the work;
Please inform the editors or journal staff and recuse to review if you feel that you are unable to offer an impartial review. When submitting your review, you must indicate whether or not you have any competing interests.
Bear in mind that many contributors to our Journal are enthusiasts of Free and Open Source technologies and junior researchers who happen to be, in many cases, first-time contributors to peer-reviewed publications. Your goal as a reviewer must be to encourage the authors to bring the paper to an excellent quality, re-wording and re-working whatever passages you see fit to improve the overall quality of the submission. Provide detail explanations and academic references where you see fit, and help the authors maximize their potential for contributing, at once, to the Open Hardware community and to the academic research on Open Source technologies.
Reviewers are asked to provide comment on the below topics and guidelines:
- Content: Does the article fit within the scope of the journal? Is the submission original, relevant and rigorous? Is the author’s depth of understanding of the issues researched adequate? Are the sources and references adequate? Has the existing knowledge base been explored and built upon? Are the chosen methodologies appropriate and have they and the evidential base been appropriately used? Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?
- Structure and argument: Does the abstract summarise the arguments in a succinct and accurate way? Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?
- Figures/tables: Does the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps illustrate the arguments and support the evidential base? Is the quality of the formatting and presentation adequate?
- Formatting: Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?
- Language: Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.
The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:
- The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit to the journal.
- The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
- The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
- Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.
The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.
The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.
The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). This should be linked to from a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. If data is not being made available with the journal publication, a statement from the author should be provided to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. When depositing data for a submission, the below should be considered:
- The repository the data is deposited in must be suitable for this subject and have a sustainability model.
- The data must be deposited under an open license that permits unrestricted access (e.g. CC0, CC-BY). More restrictive licenses should only be used if a valid reason (e.g. legal) is present.
- The deposited data must include a version that is in an open, non-proprietary format.
- The deposited data must have been labelled in such a way that a 3rd party can make sense of it (e.g. sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme text file).
- Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Where applicable, the studies must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The identity of the research subject should be anonymised whenever possible. For research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their legal guardian).
- A ‘Data Accessibility Statement’ should be added to the submission, prior to the reference list, providing the details of the data accessibility, including the DOI linking to it. If the data is restricted in any way, the reasoning should be given.
A list of data repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.
All listed authors must qualify as such, as defined in our authorship guidelines, which have been developed from the ICMJE definitions. All authors must have given permission to be listed on the submitted paper.
Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics
To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.
In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines).
Corrections and Retractions
In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), the Press handles different kinds of error. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact the journal if you believe an article needs correcting.
Post-publication changes to the publication are not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. Visit our Correction Policy page for more information.
Misconduct and Complaints
Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation. Where misconduct is proven or strongly suspected, the journal has an obligation to report the issue to the author's institution, who may conduct their own investigation. This applies to both research misconduct (e.g. completing research without ethical approval and consent, fabricating or falsifying data etc) and publication misconduct (e.g. manipulating the peer review process, plagiarism etc). Should an investigation conclude that misconduct or misinformation has occurred then the author, along with their institution will be notified. Should the publication record need to be corrected, the journal's correction policy will be followed.
Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or adequate, the author should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
Issues in Open Hardware
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed
- Open Submissions
- Peer Reviewed