Peer Review Policy

The Archives of Biotechnology and Biomedicine employs a rigorous peer review process designed to safeguard scientific quality, integrity, and transparency. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that only high-quality, original, and ethically sound work becomes part of the permanent scientific record. This Peer Review Policy describes our principles, procedures, and expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors.

Principles of Peer Review

• Impartiality: Reviews are conducted without bias toward nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or seniority.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.
• Integrity: Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and constructive.
• Transparency: Processes are clearly defined and communicated to all stakeholders.
• Accountability: Editors, reviewers, and authors share responsibility for upholding ethical standards.

Type of Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review model:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• Editorial staff act as intermediaries to preserve anonymity and impartiality.

This model minimizes potential conflicts of interest and ensures that evaluation is based solely on the scholarly merit of the work.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Initial Screening: Manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for compliance with submission guidelines, scope, and ethical requirements.
2. Editor Assignment: A subject editor evaluates the manuscript for novelty, relevance, and quality.
3. Reviewer Selection: At least two qualified reviewers are invited, chosen for expertise in the subject area.
4. Review Process: Reviewers provide written feedback on methodology, clarity, ethics, and originality.
5. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes a decision: accept, revise, or reject.
6. Revision and Resubmission: Authors may be asked to revise their work in response to comments, after which the manuscript may undergo further review.
7. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or delegated editor issues the final decision after considering all input.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback.
• Evaluate methodology, originality, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation.
• Identify potential plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or data manipulation.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor if unable.
• Maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts and reviews.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must:

• Prepare manuscripts according to journal guidelines.
• Respond thoroughly and respectfully to reviewer comments.
• Provide revised manuscripts that clearly highlight changes.
• Acknowledge reviewer contributions in improving their work.
• Ensure originality, accuracy, and ethical compliance.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

• Ensuring fair and unbiased review.
• Selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise.
• Protecting reviewer and author confidentiality.
• Providing clear, timely communication about decisions.
• Overseeing appeals and complaints in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Decision Outcomes

After review, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all standards for publication.
• Minor Revisions: Small changes are requested, typically addressed in one revision cycle.
• Major Revisions: Significant issues require substantial changes and possibly further review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or falls outside its scope.

Timelines

The journal strives to provide initial editorial decisions within 4–6 weeks of submission. Review times may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability, but efficiency and fairness remain guiding principles.

Ethics in Peer Review

The journal’s peer review process adheres to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Misconduct, such as breach of confidentiality, misuse of unpublished material, or biased reviewing, is investigated and may result in removal of reviewers from the database and notification of institutions.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions if they believe reviews were biased or unfair. Appeals must provide detailed justification and will be reviewed by an independent editor not involved in the original decision. Complaints regarding the review process are handled confidentially and in accordance with COPE procedures.

Transparency and Future Enhancements

While the journal currently employs a double-blind model, we remain open to innovations in peer review, such as:

• Open Peer Review: Where reviewer identities may be disclosed with consent.
• Post-Publication Review: Opportunities for community feedback after publication.
• Reviewer Recognition: Integration with ORCID to credit reviewers for their contributions.

These initiatives aim to increase transparency, accountability, and recognition within peer review.