The Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology Discovery considered peer review of submitted manuscripts as the hallmark of research and only qualified and experienced researchers and academicians are selected to undertake this task. The review process helps editors in making decision on an article and also enables the author(s) to improve their manuscript. The reviewers should agree to review manuscripts that are within their area of expertise. They should be willing to dedicate adequate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript. The reviewers’ report should be comprehensive and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. Reviewers should also adhere to the following guidelines:
Conflict of Interest
As a general rule for reviewers, an individual must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor and, if serious, simply abstain from reviewing. Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript when they:
Any other interests not mentioned above and if exist must be declared by the reviewers, which will be considered by the editor.
Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside during and after the review process. If there must be a need to consult with colleague(s) trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained, the reviewer should first contact the handling editor of the manuscript for permission and note the name of the colleague(s).
Plagiarism is an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author (Wikipedia). Reviewers should not use 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.
We encourage reviewers to refrain from being hostile or inﬂammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments. Their reviews should not be inﬂuenced by:
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts they are willing to dedicate adequate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts within the time frame stipulated by the handling editor.
The core reason for peer review is to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. The reviewers should focus their reports on the scientific aspects of the manuscript, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made. In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should be able to deduce if the:
Although the overall decision will be made by the editor, at the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
Recommendations should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript.
References for further reading
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) - Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) - Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals