Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process at ABSE aims to maintain the credibility of scientific publishing by ensuring that submitted manuscripts are original, methodologically sound, and contribute meaningfully to the field of biomedical science and engineering. Peer review also provides constructive feedback to authors for improving the quality and clarity of their research.

2. Type of Peer Review

ABSE adopts a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This model promotes fairness, minimizes bias, and encourages objective evaluation based solely on the content of the work.

3. Review Process Overview

• Initial Screening: Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial office for compliance with scope, formatting, and ethical standards.
• Editor Assignment: The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability and selects reviewers based on expertise.
• Reviewer Selection: Each submission is sent to a minimum of two qualified reviewers.
• Review Timeline: Reviewers are requested to provide reports within 2–3 weeks of invitation acceptance.
• Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, editors make one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the journal’s scientific standards. They are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.
• Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.
• Provide specific, evidence-based feedback to improve clarity and validity.
• Refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

5. Author Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors must respect the confidentiality of the review process and respond to reviewer comments in a professional and transparent manner. Revised manuscripts should clearly indicate changes and provide detailed responses to reviewer suggestions.

6. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors oversee the entire review process to ensure ethical conduct and timely communication. Their duties include:

• Assigning suitable reviewers based on expertise and absence of conflict.
• Ensuring an unbiased evaluation process.
• Communicating editorial decisions clearly and transparently.
• Maintaining confidentiality throughout the workflow.

7. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts and communications related to the review process are strictly confidential. Reviewers and editors may not share or discuss the content with third parties without permission. Reviewer identities are protected unless explicit consent for disclosure is given.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest such as personal relationships, collaborations, or financial ties that could influence objectivity. Conflicted reviewers are replaced without prejudice.

9. Review Quality Standards

High-quality reviews are expected to include:

• A balanced evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.
• Evidence-based comments supported by references where applicable.
• Clear and actionable feedback to assist the author’s revision.
• Recommendations consistent with the review content (accept, revise, reject).

10. Review Outcome and Decision Criteria

Editorial decisions are based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Scientific accuracy and methodological soundness.
• Significance and contribution to the field.
• Clarity of presentation and ethical compliance.

Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult additional reviewers in case of conflicting reports.

11. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors receiving revision requests must resubmit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers. Editors may send the revision for re-review or make a decision based on adequacy of responses.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may appeal by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial committee or external expert. Complaints about peer review conduct or ethical issues are handled confidentially according to COPE guidelines.

13. Post-Publication Review

ABSE encourages scholarly dialogue and welcomes post-publication discussions or letters to the editor that provide constructive critiques. Valid concerns about published content may lead to editorial review, correction, or retraction as necessary.

14. Ethical Compliance

ABSE follows COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and ICMJE recommendations. All participants in the review process are expected to uphold principles of confidentiality, fairness, accountability, and professionalism.

15. Transparency and Recognition

While the double-blind model is standard, ABSE recognizes the contributions of reviewers through optional annual acknowledgments. Reviewer identities are disclosed only with consent. The journal may integrate Publons or ORCID for reviewer credit verification.

16. Timeliness and Efficiency

To ensure timely publication, ABSE tracks review durations and provides automatic reminders to reviewers. The target review period is 2–4 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity.

17. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

This Peer Review Policy is periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with evolving standards of scholarly publishing and open science. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors is actively encouraged to improve review quality and transparency.

18. Contact Information

For inquiries related to the peer review process or conflict resolution, please contact:

• Email: [email protected]
• Editorial Office: Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE), USA