FACETS is a multidisciplinary open access journal published by Canadian Science Publishing. Material published in FACETS is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY (this conforms with the licensing requirements of all major funding agencies).
The contact information for the journal is as follows:
Canadian Science Publishing
65 Auriga Drive, Suite 203
Ottawa, ON K2E 7W6 Canada
Reviews of manuscripts and correspondence directly related to the manuscripts under review are administered through the online peer review system.
FACETS is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary open access science journal that will primarily feature research articles, and will also include review articles, communications, notes, comments, perspectives, editorials, and science applications forum papers. FACETS will initially focus on six research areas: Biological and Life Sciences; Biomedical and Health Sciences; Earth and Environmental Sciences; Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics; Integrative Sciences (including topics such as science and policy, and science communication); and Physical Sciences. Although not officially covering Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) topics, the Integrative Sciences section will include intersections of science and the social sciences. Additional subject categories will be added as the journal evolves in conjunction with emerging scientific advances.
Criteria for Publication
Research published in FACETS must conform to ethical standards of experimentation and research integrity. Reviewers are referred to the FACETS Publishing policy and Instructions to authors for more information.
Peer review is expected to be rigorous and objective, and to assess the technical validity or soundness of the work. Authors must also show evidence of advancing knowledge.
Roles & Responsibilities
The role of the reviewer is not to “nurture” the authors, but rather to evaluate the work and provide constructive feedback. No editing by reviewers is required during the review stage.
Reviewers are advisors to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and should serve only in their areas of expertise. A reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to evaluate a paper should decline to review the paper.
Conflicts of Interest
A reviewer who cannot give an unbiased opinion about a paper because of personal relationships, competing research, financial interests, etc., should declare this bias or conflict of interest to the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board and decline to review the paper.
Reviewers must treat the paper and the review as confidential communications. If a reviewer wishes to seek expert advice from an associate, he or she should consult the appropriate Subject Editor or Associate Editor before proceeding. The associate must also honour the confidentiality of the document.
FACETS manuscripts undergo a single-blind peer review process. Reviewers must therefore remain anonymous. If reviewers upload an annotated file, they must ensure that the identifying name in the document properties and comments in the text are changed to “anonymous”.
Reviewers are advisory to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and provide recommendations, but do not make decisions on the acceptance or rejection of a paper.
A reviewer who is unable to complete the review of a paper in an appropriate time frame should notify the Editorial Office and agree on a new deadline, or decline to review the paper.
All statements made by the reviewer must be adequately supported so that the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board may make a well-informed decision regarding the paper.
Reviewers must ensure that reviews are written in a respectful, professional manner, and are free of any kind of prejudice, especially gender and racial stereotyping.
The reviewer should call to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board any failure by an author to cite relevant work by other scientists, as well as any published or unpublished papers the reviewer is aware of that would constitute plagiarism or duplicate publication.
Reviewers should also call to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board any failure by an author to adhere to the ethical standards and policies of their area of study. Reviewers are referred to the FACETS Instructions to Authors for guidelines.
Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted paper should not be used for the reviewer's own research except with the consent of the author.
English Language Improvement Service
Submissions will be screened by the Editorial Office to assess the basic quality of the English prior to being sent for review.
If the reviewer judges that the English of the manuscript is too poor to meet the standard of quality for publication, he or she can recommend that the author(s) submit the manuscript to an English language improvement service prior to submitting the manuscript for reconsideration.
Canadian Science Publishing has partnered with Editage to offer pre-submission editing services to authors. The services offered by Editage will help authors, particularly those for whom English is not their first language, craft well-written manuscripts for submission to FACETS, making it easier for peer reviewers to assess the science of a manuscript and reducing the risk that a paper with good scientific content will be rejected because of a lack of clarity.
Please note that language editing does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent out for peer review or accepted for publication. Articles accepted for publication in FACETS will be copy-edited as part of the production process.
Editage is a leader in English-language editing, translation, and author education services and works closely with journal authors worldwide to improve their success in publication.
You will be asked to consider the following questions and to input your responses within the online peer review system.
Is the information presented technically sound?
Does the information presented demonstrate evidence of advancing knowledge?
Is the title informative and limited to what is documented?
Does the abstract reflect the essentials of the methodology and findings?
Is the introduction limited to the purpose, scope, and rationale of the study?
Are sufficient methodological details given such that the study can be repeated by others?
Are the results clearly and succinctly presented?
Are there inconsistencies between tables or figures and the text, or within the text?
Are all the tables and figures necessary and is the text of appropriate length?
Is the discussion limited to interpreting the data and explaining its significance?
Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and adequately supported by the data?
Are the cited references complete and appropriate?
Are there any errors in technique, calculation, interpretation, presentation, or style?
Does this manuscript report data or conclusions already published or in press?
Have the authors described the safeguards used to meet both formal and informal standards of ethical conduct of research for the specific field of study? (e.g., approval of a research protocol by an institutional committee, procurement of informed consent, adherence to codes of ethical conduct for the treatment of human or animal subjects, maintenance of confidentiality of personal data on patients, procedures for studying endangered animals, field research permits, and research on only legally obtained archaeological and paleontological artifacts or specimens deposited in an accessible, permanent repository, etc.).