Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Biological and Medical Innovations (JBMI) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality in the publication process. To ensure that only the most scientifically rigorous research is published, JBMI follows a comprehensive and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines the procedures for the peer review of manuscripts submitted to the journal, the roles and responsibilities of reviewers, and the ethical guidelines governing the review process.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review:

• Anonymity of Authors and Reviewers: JBMI employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures impartial and unbiased reviews, as reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit rather than the identity or affiliation of the author.

• Fair and Objective Evaluation: The peer review process is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback on their work, helping to improve the quality and clarity of their manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant area of research, and their feedback is focused on the scientific quality, methodology, originality, and relevance of the manuscript.

2. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening:

• Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts via JBMI’s online submission portal. Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to check for compliance with the journal’s guidelines, ethical standards, and suitability for the journal’s scope.

• Decision to Send for Peer Review: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is sent to at least two independent peer reviewers who are experts in the subject matter of the article. In certain cases, the editorial team may decide to send the manuscript to additional reviewers if further expertise is needed.

3. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to keep the manuscript and all associated information confidential. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.

• Impartial and Objective Assessment: Reviewers must assess the manuscript impartially, without bias towards the authors, and must base their evaluation on the scientific quality of the research presented. If a reviewer has any personal or professional conflict of interest, they must notify the editorial team and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

• Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive, and respectful feedback that helps authors improve the quality of their manuscript. This includes identifying strengths, suggesting areas for improvement, and providing suggestions for revisions where necessary.

• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the specified time frame (usually 4-6 weeks). If a reviewer cannot meet this deadline, they should inform the editorial office so that alternative reviewers can be found.

4. Decision-Making Process:

• Review Feedback: Once the peer reviews are received, the editorial team evaluates the reviewers’ comments and makes a decision about the manuscript. This decision is based on the feedback provided by the reviewers, and the author will be informed of the decision, along with the reviewers’ comments.

• Possible Decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is, without the need for further revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions. The authors are asked to make changes as suggested by the reviewers and resubmit the manuscript for final approval.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Authors are given detailed feedback and are asked to revise the manuscript accordingly.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to scientific, ethical, or methodological issues. Authors will receive a detailed explanation for the rejection.

5. Handling of Ethical Concerns:

• Ethical Violations: If a reviewer identifies ethical issues during the review process (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or other misconduct), the issue should be reported to the editorial team immediately. JBMI follows COPE guidelines for handling ethical concerns and misconduct.

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest they have with the manuscript or the authors. If a conflict of interest is discovered after the review process, the manuscript may be reconsidered or re-reviewed, and appropriate actions will be taken according to JBMI’s ethical guidelines.

6. Appeal Process:

• Author Appeals: If an author disagrees with the decision made after peer review (e.g., rejection or major revisions), they can request an appeal. Authors must submit a written appeal explaining the reasons for the disagreement, and the editorial team will review the decision. In some cases, the manuscript may be sent for additional review by other experts.

• Transparency in Appeals: Authors will be informed of the outcome of the appeal process, and the editorial team will provide a clear explanation for any decisions made after the appeal.

7. Transparency and Integrity:

• Transparent Review Process: JBMI strives for transparency in the peer review process. To ensure that authors, reviewers, and readers are aware of the review process, JBMI will, upon request, provide a summary of the peer review process, including the names of the reviewers (if the review is not anonymous) and any revisions made after the review process.

• Publication Ethics: JBMI adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure the highest standards of publication ethics. All manuscripts are carefully reviewed to uphold these standards and maintain the integrity of the journal.

8. Reviewer Recognition:

• Acknowledging Reviewers: Reviewers are recognized for their valuable contributions to the journal. JBMI acknowledges reviewers publicly in the journal’s annual reviewer list and may also offer certificates of appreciation for their work in supporting the peer review process.