Peer Review Policy
Peer review is the process by which all submitted manuscripts at AJMB editorial office are evaluated by one or more people with similar competences and experiences. It is a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. By peer reviewing quality standards, improved performance, and credibility are maintained. AJMB is committed to apply double-blind peer reviewing process, based on the ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Peer Review Process
To publish a paper is based on the decision of the editorial team and peer review process. Initially all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of Editor in chief and members of the Associate editorial team. The main aim of this committee is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and/or fast reject the manuscript.
Role of the associate editor in scientific journals
The presence of a full-time associate editor has an important role in the success of any scientific journal. Associate editors in each scientific field are selected based on their educational and scientific background and expertise by the Editor in chief.
The tasks of an associate editor are as follows:
- Inviting the reviewers to join a project
- Monitoring the work of the reviewers
- Announcing the final decision made for the article: The associate editor should review any article whose author has answered the reviewers’ comments and make a final decision whether to accept or reject it.
- Observing the reviewers’ comments on an article
Associate editors are guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. They actively work to improve the quality of the journal.
Scientific and initial screening
It is believed that all submitted manuscript to Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology (AJMB) for possible publication has not been simultaneously submitted, published anywhere, or already accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects that authors would authorize one of them to correspond with the AJMB for all matters related to the manuscript.
On submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript for all the required elements. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws or lack of a significant message are rejected before proceeding for formal peer-review. Manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest to the AJMB readers are also liable to be rejected at this stage.
Double-blind review process
The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identity. A peer review system including two or three reviewers is applied to guarantee the quality of manuscripts accepted for publication. Manuscripts that are found initially suitable for publication by the Associate editor are sent to two or more expert reviewers. The selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of the Associate editor and Editor in chief. The AJMB editorial office takes every reasonable step to ensure author(s) identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity.
The comments and suggestions (acceptance/ rejection/ amendments in manuscript) received from reviewers are conveyed to the Associate editor. The Associate editor then prepares a revision letter which is sent to the corresponding author. The author is requested to provide a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. The authors have 14 days to resubmit the revised manuscripts. Authors may contact the journal’s office through its email address if they require an extension. This process is repeated till reviewers and Associate editors are satisfied with the manuscript.
Manuscripts accepted for publication are copyedited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within seven days. It may not be possible to incorporate corrections received after that period.
Papers which do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example because their novel contribution is insufficient or irrelevant, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere.
We aim to complete the review process within 6 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 8 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.
Being a peer reviewed (double-blind referee) journal, the reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal. They are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form. The essential feature of any review is that it should be helpful and constructive and AJMB policy urges reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors.
The peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Associate editor and Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Reviewer report must contain detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. The reviewers should make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if the reviewers feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest. No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
In general, the following may be checked in a review:
- Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines
- Purpose and Objective of the article
- Method of using transitions in the article
- Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
- References provided to substantiate the content
- Grammar, punctuation and spelling
- Plagiarism issues
- Suitability of the article to the need
A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.
Reviewers should also:
- Write clearly and comprehensively
- Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse speakers
- Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
- If asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, reviewer should indicate clearly which these are
- Treat the author’s work the way they would like their own to be treated
- Also indicate if the manuscript requires English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected
Conflict of interest in reviewing process
Although AJMB has a double bind peer review process, research world can be a small one. It means many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with their work. Please:
- If there’s a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor
- If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request
- Avoid personal judgement and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
- Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.
COPE’s guidelines & flowcharts
Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology (AJMB) is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, please click here.
International standards for authors and editors
Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology (AJMB) is committed to follow and apply International Standards for Authors and Editors of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with its issues.