Peer Review Process

The Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review system to ensure fairness, quality, and objectivity in scientific publishing. This process maintains the anonymity of both authors and reviewers while promoting transparent, ethical evaluation consistent with COPE Core Practices, ICMJE Recommendations, and DOAJ Principles of Transparency.

1. Overview of the Review Model

  • All submissions undergo a two-stage review: initial editorial screening and external peer review.
  • ABSE operates a double-blind review—identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout.
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts, with a third reviewer assigned if needed.
  • Decisions are based purely on scientific merit, originality, and methodological rigor.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor screens the manuscript for:

  • Relevance to ABSE’s Aims and Scope.
  • Compliance with Author Guidelines and ethical requirements.
  • Clarity, structure, and basic technical quality.
  • Plagiarism screening via Turnitin/iThenticate.

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are returned to authors for revision or declined prior to review (“desk rejection”).

3. Assignment of Reviewers

After passing the initial check, the editor selects reviewers based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest. Reviewers are invited through the OJS Reviewer Database and must confirm acceptance within 48 hours.

4. Review Timeline

Stage Typical Duration
Initial editorial check 5–7 days
Reviewer invitation & confirmation 2–4 days
Review period 14–21 days
Author revision (if required) 7–14 days
Final decision & production 5–7 days

The total peer-review cycle typically completes within 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer response and revision depth.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts for:

  • Originality and contribution to biomedical science & engineering.
  • Soundness of methodology and statistical analysis.
  • Validity and reproducibility of results.
  • Ethical compliance and informed-consent documentation.
  • Clarity of writing, logical organization, and referencing accuracy.

6. Review Recommendations

Each reviewer submits one of the following recommendations within OJS:

  • Accept as is
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Editors synthesize all reports and make the final decision, considering reviewer consensus and manuscript quality.

7. Revision Cycle

  1. Authors receive consolidated reviewer feedback through OJS.
  2. Revised manuscripts must include a detailed “Response to Reviewers” file outlining changes.
  3. For major revisions, the manuscript may be re-sent to original reviewers for re-evaluation.

8. Confidentiality and Ethics

  • All reviews and editorial communications are confidential.
  • Reviewers must not use unpublished data for personal research.
  • Editors must ensure anonymity and secure data handling under GDPR.
  • Ethical breaches are investigated following Publication Ethics Policy.

9. OJS Workflow — Step-by-Step

  1. Submission: Author uploads files and metadata → system assigns a unique Manuscript ID.
  2. Editor Assignment: Managing Editor or EIC assigns Section Editor within OJS.
  3. Reviewer Invitation: Section Editor selects reviewers → system sends automatic invitation email.
  4. Review Completion: Reviewers submit recommendations and comments in the OJS form.
  5. Decision: Editor reviews reports → issues decision letter (Accept/Revise/Reject).
  6. Revision Upload: Author submits revised version and response document → editor checks changes.
  7. Final Decision: After acceptance → manuscript forwarded to Production Stage.

10. Double-Blind Integrity

Reviewer and author identities remain hidden throughout the process. Editors must remove identifying metadata before files are shared. Only the editorial office has access to full author details for correspondence purposes.

11. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts (e.g., shared affiliations, recent collaborations, financial ties). When conflicts arise, manuscripts are reassigned to maintain neutrality. All disclosures are logged in OJS.

12. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission triggers immediate COPE-aligned investigation. Editors notify the corresponding author and, if necessary, institutional ethics committees. Proven misconduct results in retraction or ban from future submission.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by emailing [email protected] within 14 days. Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor not involved in the original decision.

14. Reviewer Recognition

ABSE values its reviewers’ contributions. Reviewers may receive certificates and acknowledgment (with consent) in annual “List of Contributors.” Timely, high-quality reviews strengthen journal reputation and scholarly trust.

15. Post-Acceptance Workflow

  1. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and typesetting.
  2. Authors approve final proofs before online publication.
  3. CrossRef DOI and metadata are registered automatically.
  4. Articles are archived via Portico and LOCKSS for preservation.

16. Commitment to Transparency

“ABSE’s peer-review process is built on transparency, objectivity, and accountability. Every manuscript receives a fair and timely evaluation by qualified experts under ethical oversight.”

17. Contact Information

© 2025 Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE). All rights reserved. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.