Peer-Review Process

Table of contents

  • Overview
  • Peer Review Model
  • Peer-Review Timeline
  • Reviewer Assignment
  • Responsibilities of Reviewers
  • Responsibilities of Authors
  • Reviewer Timeline
  • Editorial Decisions
  • Editorial Independence and Responsibilities
  • Complaints and Appeals
  • Publication Ethics and Misconduct
  • Plagiarism
  • Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
  • Retraction Policy
  • After Acceptance
  • Preprint Policy
  • Reviewer Recognition
  • Expression of Concern

 

Overview

The Journal of Current Biomedical Reports (JCBioR) operates a rigorous, double-blind peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, ethically sound biomedical research. We are committed to transparency, fairness, and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Our editorial practices follow the standards of ICMJE, COPE, WAME, and established publishing norms.

 

Peer Review Model

We use the double-blind peer-review model: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and vice versa. This helps ensure unbiased evaluation.

 

Peer-Review Timeline

The routine peer-review process typically takes 4-6 weeks from submission to the initial decision. If the editorial decision has not been communicated within the routine review timeframe, corresponding authors may formally inquire about the status of their submission by contacting the journal’s editorial office.

 

Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent experts in the relevant field. Additional reviewers may be invited for multidisciplinary or contentious submissions.

Reviewers are selected based on: Scientific expertise and qualifications; Absence of conflicts of interest; Recent publications in the field; Past reviewer performance and reliability.

Authors are encouraged to suggest at least three potential peer reviewers for their submission by listing them in the “Comments for the Editor” box. If you wish to do so, suggested reviewers must be suitably qualified to evaluate the submitted work, should not be current, recent, or close collaborators of any of the authors, and must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors. Where possible, please provide institutional email addresses, or sufficient information to verify the reviewer’s identity (e.g., ORCID or Scopus ID). Providing false or misleading reviewer information, including fabricated names or email addresses, constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics and will result in immediate rejection of the manuscript, with potential referral for further investigation in accordance with the journal’s misconduct policy.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.

Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear and supported arguments.

Conflict of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and refrain from reviewing manuscripts where such conflicts exist.

Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to respond promptly and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

 

Responsibilities of Authors

Originality and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and that any use of others’ work is properly cited. All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software.

Data accuracy: Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the data presented. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is considered misconduct.

Multiple or redundant publication: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time or publish the same research in multiple journals.

Acknowledgment of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Authorship criteria: Only individuals who made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study should be listed as authors, in accordance with ICMJE guidelines.

Conflict of interest disclosure: Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could influence their work.

Reporting of errors: If an author discovers a significant error in their published work, they must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in issuing a correction or retraction.

 

Reviewer Timeline

Reviewers are given 2-3 weeks to complete their evaluations. Extensions may be granted upon request. Delayed reviewers are respectfully reminded to maintain publication timelines.

 

Editorial Decisions

The final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor based on reviewer reports and editorial insight, and we strongly ensuring that we keep the editorial decision without the interference of personal, political, or financial interests. Possible decisions include: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions or Reject. In cases of conflicting reviews, editors may: Consult an additional reviewer, Hold editorial board discussion or Apply editorial judgment based on evidence and comments.

 

Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

Fair and impartial decisions: Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, without discrimination based on the authors’ gender, ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, or institutional affiliation.

Confidentiality: Editors maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and do not disclose any information to unauthorized parties.

Conflict of interest: Editors will not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for their own research without written consent from the author.

Ethical oversight: Editors will take appropriate measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted or published paper, in accordance with COPE flowcharts.

Editors must not manipulate journal metrics by requesting unnecessary citations to the journal, their own work, or related products. References should only be suggested for valid scholarly reasons, never to artificially boost rankings or serve personal interests.

 

Complaints and Appeals

If you disagree with a decision made by the JCBioR, the author may appeal the decision by providing an email to Editor with a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewer and editor's comments. The Editor will review the peer review process undertaken for the submission. If the decision was made in line with editorial criteria, the Editor’s decision to reject is final. JCBR will acknowledge receipt of an email sent to admin@jcbior.com within 7 business days. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. Final decisions on appeals will be made within 4-8 weeks by the Editorial Board Member handling the paper or the Editor-in-Chief.

In general, an appeal against a rejection decision on a manuscript will only be considered if:

(a) The authors can demonstrate that an error that determined the final decision has been made - by a reviewer or the Editors - during the review

or

(b) If important additional data can be provided

or

(c) If a convincing case of bias in the process can be demonstrated

 

Complaints

Complaints about our processes or about publication ethics will be handled by the Editor responsible for the journal. The author will be notified of the outcome by email. If the author wishes to pursue their complaint further, they may contact COPE directly. Information can be found on the COPE website.

 

Publication ethics and misconduct

JCBioR is endorsing the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals in which the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research and other scholarly activities are expected. Any individual found guilty of willful ‘misconduct’ as defined below is subject to disciplinary action by the Editorial Board.

Definition of research misconduct:

The US Office of Research Integrity defines the following terms in relation to research misconduct:

(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

(d) Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

Suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission, image manipulation) is handled per COPE’s flowcharts.

 

Plagiarism

Any form of plagiarism will not be tolerated. If serious evidence of plagiarism was detected by the editorial team or reviewers in any stage of the article process it be can lead to the rejection of the article. But, if only content plagiarism with a tolerable rate was detected, the author(s) may ask to revise their content.

Similarity check for all submitted manuscripts to JCBR is performed by iThenticate plagiarism detection software.

 

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All participants must uphold strict confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviews are confidential and must not be shared; Reviewers and editors must declare conflicts of interest; Editors and reviewers with conflicts are excluded from processing or evaluating that manuscript.

 

Retraction Policy

JCBioR is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. Retractions are considered in accordance with COPE guidelines when significant issues are identified in published articles. Please, visit “Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement" for more details.

 

After Acceptance

Following acceptance, the manuscript will be forwarded to the Production Department for typesetting and layout preparation. Upon completion of this stage, the corresponding author will receive an official email notification. This correspondence will include:

  1. Author(s) and Affiliation Verification- Authors will be requested to review and confirm the accuracy of all listed name(s), and affiliations.
  2. Proofs for Review- Page proofs of the manuscript will be provided for careful examination. Authors should check for typographical errors, formatting inconsistencies, or factual inaccuracies.

Authors are required to return the corrected proofs within the specified timeframe to avoid delays in publication. Substantive changes to the text at this stage will only be permitted with the approval of the editorial office.

 

Preprint Policy

JCBioR supports transparency in scientific communication and recognizes the value of preprints in accelerating research dissemination.

JCBioR accepts submissions that have been previously posted as preprints, provided that:

- The preprint is clearly acknowledged at the time of submission, including the DOI or link to the preprint server.

- The authors retain responsibility for ensuring that the preprint does not violate copyright, confidentiality, or institutional policies.

- Authors should disclose preprint deposition in the cover letter and manuscript footnote (e.g., “This work was previously published as a preprint at [preprint server], DOI: xx”).

Posting a preprint does not affect editorial consideration or the outcome of peer review.

 

Reviewer Recognition

JCBioR values reviewer contributions: Reviewers receive email acknowledgments; Participation may be recorded in Publons, ORCID, or institutional dossiers (at the reviewer’s discretion).

 

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern based on COPE guidlines is issued to alert readers to potential problems with a published article while an investigation is ongoing, inconclusive, or not possible. It is not a retraction but a temporary notice to ensure transparency.

An Expression of Concern may be published when:

-There is evidence suggesting possible misconduct or serious error, but it is inconclusive.

-An investigation is underway but will take significant time.

-The authors’ institution is unresponsive or declines to investigate.

Procedure

-Assess the concern to ensure it is serious but lacks enough proof for immediate retraction or correction.

-Contact authors for a response and inform their institution.

-Draft the notice with a clear title, neutral language, reason for concern, and status of investigation.

-Publish and link the notice to the original article.

-Update or replace the notice when the investigation concludes.

Possible Outcomes

-Retraction: if findings are confirmed unreliable.

-Correction: if minor errors are confirmed.

-Removal of notice: if the article is validated.