Peer-Review Process
Peer Review Process
This is a journal with a blind peer-review process, but the name of reviewers are listed in each issue (Package for the authors).
1- For paper submission, the author should register on the journal website (https://jbiotechintel.com/index.php/biotechintel) and register. After receiving their username and password via e-mail, the authors could use the "Submit paper" link, log in, and submit their manuscript.
2- Manuscripts written according to the journal format (considering the format in sectioning, the number of words in abstract, references, etc.…) are referred to the related section editor. If the paper fits the specified fields of the journal and has innovation, then it will be sent to three or more national and international referees experts in that specific field, at least two of which are out of the editorial board members (preferably one from the scientifically advanced countries). The corresponding author could also suggest potential reviewers to the journal at the time of submission. However, the editorial board reserves the right to select or refuse to use the suggested potential reviewers.
3- The reviewer comments will be sent to the corresponding author in 2 months. Technical check takes less than 1 week. Also, production process and online publication takes 2 less weeks (in case of prompt reply of responsive authors).
4- After receiving the modified version of the manuscript and/or the author’s answers to the reviewer questions, it will be sent to a final reviewer. If the modifications and/or answers are not adequate, they will be sent back to the corresponding author with a specified deadline to send the final corrected version.
5- The final corrected version of the manuscript is sent back to the same final reviewer. Then, the comments and the overall opinion of the final reviewer are discussed in the journal"s editorial board, and the final decision (the acceptance letter or a letter informing the author of not accepting the manuscript) will be sent to the corresponding author.
Peer reviewer/ responsibility of reviewers
- The reviewers only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
- Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
- In reviewing an article they respect the confidentiality of the process and the rights of those who submitted the articles.
- The reviewers will not use any information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
- The reviewers should not have any conflict of interest and will declare all potential conflicting interests.
- They will not be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- The reviewers will be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
- They undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
- They will provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
Reviewing Policies and Procedures
Reviewers
Reviewers’ Guidelines
|
Introduction Conflict of Interest Confidentiality Fairness Review reports Timeliness Recommendations Resources Introduction The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. The Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences (IJMS) operates a single blind peer review system. Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
Conflict of Interest “Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. WAME “Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE Confidentiality Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process. “Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”. COPE Fairness Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by:
Review reports In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:
Reviewers should also observe that the author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics. The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made. Timeliness Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner. Recommendations Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript. You can also find basic training for reviewer tasks and step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript in the journal’s website through this link. Resources |