Peer Review Policy

 
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
1. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
Submission through JBS
▼
2. INITIAL EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT
Scope • Originality • Ethics • Quality
▼
EDITORIAL SCREENING DECISION
Proceed to external review
▼
3. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW
Minimum 2 independent reviewers
▼
4. REVIEWER EVALUATION
Methods • Results • Ethics • Significance
▼
5. EDITORIAL DECISION
Accept • Minor • Major • Reject
REVISION REQUIRED
Author revision → editor assessment → possible re-review
▼
6. FINAL DECISION
Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor
▼
7. ACCEPTANCE & PUBLICATION
Production → Publication → Indexing
▼
8. POST-PUBLICATION OVERSIGHT
Corrections • Concerns • Retractions
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewer identities remain confidential
The Journal of Bioscience Studies (JBS) is committed to a rigorous, fair, independent, confidential, and timely peer-review process that supports scholarly quality and research integrity. JBS follows the core principles and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and maintains a peer-review process designed to provide objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts.
Type of Peer Review JBS operates a double-blind peer-review system. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer-review process to support objectivity and minimize potential bias. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Peer-review reports are not routinely published with articles and reviewers do not sign their reports unless the journal explicitly adopts a different procedure for a particular article or review process.
Initial Editorial Assessment All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The assessment may consider the journal's scope, originality, basic methodological quality, ethical compliance, reporting completeness, plagiarism or text-reuse concerns, competing interests, authorship information, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to authors, rejected without external review, or referred for clarification.
External Peer Review Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. External reviewers are selected independently of the journal's editorial team and should have appropriate expertise and no significant competing interest in the manuscript. The journal may seek additional reviewers when specialist expertise, conflicting recommendations, methodological concerns, or other circumstances warrant further assessment.
Reviewer Evaluation Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the characteristics appropriate to the article type and subject area. Considerations may include scientific originality, methodological rigor, validity of analysis, clarity of presentation, significance of the findings, interpretation of results, reproducibility, ethical compliance, reporting completeness, references, figures and tables, and overall contribution to the field.
Reviewer Selection and Independence Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, publication experience, and availability. The journal seeks reviewers who are independent of the authors and their institutions and who have no circumstances that could compromise impartiality. Reviewers may be excluded where there is a significant personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationship with the authors.
Reviewer Responsibilities
• Review manuscripts objectively, constructively, and within the agreed timeframe.
• Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts, data, correspondence, and reviewer reports.
• Declare actual or potential competing interests before accepting a review assignment.
• Refrain from using unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or financial advantage.
• Identify significant methodological, ethical, reporting, or interpretive concerns.
• Alert the handling editor to suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or other research-integrity concerns.
Confidentiality All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and other information obtained during peer review are treated as confidential. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not share, reproduce, discuss, or distribute confidential manuscript information with unauthorized third parties. Reviewers must not use submitted manuscripts or unpublished information for their own research or other purposes without appropriate authorization.
Competing Interests Reviewers and editors must disclose financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other competing interests that could affect their impartiality. Individuals with significant competing interests should decline or be removed from the review or editorial process for the relevant manuscript. Competing interests may include recent collaboration, close professional relationships, direct competition, financial interests, or other circumstances that could reasonably create a perception of bias.
Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished information. Confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, unpublished data, or other protected editorial material must not be uploaded to generative artificial intelligence systems or other external tools where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or editorial integrity. Human reviewers remain responsible for the content and recommendations contained in their peer-review reports.
Author-Recommended Reviewers Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted by the journal's submission system; however, reviewer selection remains entirely at the discretion of the Editorial Office. Suggested reviewers are subject to the same independence, expertise, and competing-interest requirements as all other reviewers. Authors may not nominate individuals with a significant personal, professional, institutional, financial, or recent collaborative relationship with the authors.
Supplementary Materials Supplementary materials that are essential to the interpretation, verification, or reproducibility of a manuscript may be evaluated during peer review. Reviewers may be asked to assess supplementary datasets, methods, tables, figures, appendices, protocols, or other supporting files where relevant to the editorial decision.
Editorial Decision-Making Peer-review recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, who considers the reviewers' assessments together with the manuscript's scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, relevance, originality, and conformity with journal policies. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, advertising, sponsorship, personal, or other inappropriate considerations.
Possible Editorial Decisions
• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision required.
• Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision: Substantive revisions are required and the manuscript may require further external review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JBS or does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements.
Review of Revised Manuscripts Revised manuscripts are assessed to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the editorial and reviewer comments. Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, a revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to additional reviewers, or assessed by the handling editor. Submission of a revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Timeliness JBS aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate scholarly rigor. Reviewers are requested to accept assignments only when they can provide a report within the requested timeframe. Reviewers who are unable to complete a review within the agreed period are encouraged to notify the Editorial Office promptly. Where substantial delays occur, the journal may contact the authors regarding the status of their manuscript.
Manuscripts Authored by Editors or Editorial Board Members Editors and editorial board members may submit manuscripts to JBS, but such manuscripts are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as all other submissions. A manuscript authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, or an editorial board member must be handled independently by another qualified editor who has no relevant competing interest. The author-editor must not participate in the editorial decision, reviewer selection, or peer-review process for the manuscript.
Exceptions to External Peer Review Certain content types, such as editorials, letters, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, news items, announcements, or other non-research content, may not require the full external peer-review process. Where an article type receives a review process different from the journal's standard procedure, the nature of that review may be determined by the Editorial Office according to the article type and applicable journal policy.
Appeals Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written request to the Editorial Office within a reasonable period after the decision. Appeals should identify specific factual, methodological, procedural, or ethical grounds and provide relevant evidence where applicable. Appeals may be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified independent editor and may involve additional peer review where appropriate. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision, and the decision following an appropriate appeal process is final unless substantive new evidence becomes available.
Reviewer Recognition and Misconduct JBS recognizes the important contribution of peer reviewers to scholarly publishing. Where applicable, the journal may provide appropriate acknowledgment or recognition of reviewers while maintaining reviewer confidentiality. Suspected reviewer misconduct, manipulation of peer review, breach of confidentiality, undisclosed competing interests, inappropriate use of unpublished information, or other violations of peer-review ethics are investigated and addressed in accordance with applicable COPE guidance.
Post-Publication Concerns Concerns regarding the validity, integrity, ethical conduct, or accuracy of a published article may be submitted to the Editorial Office with supporting evidence. JBS may investigate credible concerns and, where necessary, publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and research-integrity policies.
Author Participation in Peer Review By submitting a manuscript to JBS, authors acknowledge that their manuscript may undergo editorial screening and external peer review in accordance with this policy. Authors are expected to respond constructively to reviewer and editorial comments, provide appropriate revisions and explanations, and cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or supporting documentation during the editorial process.