The corresponding author must submit manuscripts exclusively through online system at https://journal.srmist.edu.in/fomr. The corresponding authors responsible for all communications and actions on behalf of all co-authors throughout the manuscript assessment and publication process.

• Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; the creation of new software used in the work; or to have substantively drafted or revised the manuscript.
• Authors must submit the original research reports, that present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
• Authors may be asked to provide the raw data associated with the manuscript for editorial review if necessary. Such data should be retained for a reasonable period after publication.
• Changes in authorship are not encouraged. To avoid conflicts, confirm the order of authors and clearly indicate the corresponding author before submission.
• Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, changes in authorship are permitted only for corrections such as spelling or affiliation. To use the published copyright image(s), authors must obtain permission from the respective copyright holder or publisher.
• For clinical research involving humans or studies on animals, authors must obtain approval or a certificate from the appropriate authorities.
• The abstract must be 150 to 250 words and include background information, a statement of the problem, findings, results, discussion, and implications of the study. The abstract, should not contain references or non-standard / uncommon abbreviations without the full name (term) provided.

The corresponding author will receive an email acknowledgment upon successful submission of the manuscripts.

The FoMR journal follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are therefore required to ensure that the submitted manuscript does not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identity.

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to determine whether they:

• Fall within the scope of the journal.
• Meet the journal's submission and formatting requirements.
• Demonstrate sufficient academic and scholarly quality.
• Comply with the journal's ethical and publication standards.
• Meet basic requirements concerning originality and plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected at the initial screening stage without being sent for external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers are independent of the authors and do not have any conflict of interest with the manuscript.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers during submission; however, the final selection of reviewers is entirely at the discretion of the editor.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments to assist the editor in making a publication decision and, where appropriate, to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers normally consider:

• Originality and novelty of the research work.
• Relevance and significance of the research problem.
• Adequacy of the literature review.
• Clarity of the research objectives / questions.
• Appropriateness of the methodology.
• Accuracy and reliability of the analysis.
• Presentation and interpretation of results.
• Quality of discussion and conclusions.
• Appropriate use and presentation of references.
• Ethical considerations, wherever applicable.
• Overall clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution.

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, after which the manuscript may be subject to further peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

The editor makes the final publication decision. The decision is not based solely on a numerical score or recommendation from a single reviewer.

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified in the email communication.

Authors should provide a clear response to the reviewers' comments and indicate how the manuscript has been revised.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers at the editor's discretion.

The identities of reviewers are kept confidential in accordance with the journal's double-anonymous peer review policy.

Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript, review reports, or information obtained during the review process to any third party.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for their own research or personal advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer has the right to decline an invitation if they have to compromise the objectivity of the review.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on the scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the submitted work.

Commercial interests, financial considerations, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, race, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics of the authors do not influence editorial decisions.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Manuscripts will be checked using appropriate plagiarism-detection or similarity-checking tools before the peer review process.

Where concerns regarding research or publication misconduct arise, the journal will investigate the matter in accordance with applicable publication-ethics standards.

Where applicable, manuscripts involving human participants, animals, personal data, or other ethically sensitive research must comply with relevant ethical standards and obtain appropriate ethical approval or consent.

Reviewers may raise ethical concerns with the editor if they identify potential problems in a submitted manuscript.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant error or misunderstanding may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals must provide a clear and substantive justification and should address specific issues in the editorial or peer review process.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The Editor-in-Chief's decision following an appeal is final.

The journal maintains appropriate records of manuscript submissions, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, and correspondence relating to the peer review process.

These records are kept confidential and may be used for editorial, quality-control, and publication-ethics purposes.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential manuscript content to publicly accessible or third-party generative artificial intelligence systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their peer review reports.

Any use of artificial intelligence tools must not compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the peer review process.

The FoMR journal is committed to conducting peer review in a fair, objective, confidential, and timely manner.

The journal continuously reviews its peer review practices to maintain high standards of academic quality, transparency, and publication ethics.