The Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the journal’s scientific quality, objectivity, and credibility. This guide outlines ethical standards, review procedures, confidentiality rules, and step-by-step workflow instructions for reviewers operating through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The guidelines comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE Recommendations, and DOAJ Principles of Transparency.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review helps ensure that published research is original, significant, methodologically sound, and clearly presented. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive feedback that supports editorial decisions and author improvement.

2. Reviewer Eligibility and Selection

Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, research background, and publication record.
Potential conflicts of interest are screened before assignment.
Reviewers should accept invitations only if they have the appropriate expertise and can meet the review deadline (usually 14 days).

3. Ethical Responsibilities

Maintain confidentiality of all materials and information.
Declare any conflict of interest immediately to the handling editor.
Provide objective, evidence-based assessments without personal bias.
Refrain from using any unpublished data for personal research or advantage.
Respect diversity, avoiding discriminatory comments or tone.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review communications are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not discuss the work with others or share content externally. Reviews should be submitted only through OJS to maintain secure records. Breaches of confidentiality may result in removal from the reviewer database.

5. Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have:

Personal, professional, or financial ties to the authors or institutions involved.
Collaborated with any author within the past three years.
A competing interest that could influence judgment.

When in doubt, contact the editorial office before proceeding.

6. Review Structure and Criteria

Each review report should include clear, organized feedback under three sections:

Overall Evaluation — Significance, originality, and relevance to ABSE’s scope.
Detailed Comments — Methodology, data integrity, clarity of figures/tables, and referencing accuracy.
Recommendations — Choose one: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject, with justification.

Constructive tone and actionable suggestions are essential. Reviewers should avoid rewriting manuscripts or imposing stylistic preferences.

7. OJS Workflow Instructions

Login via the ABSE OJS portal and access the assigned manuscript under “Reviewer Dashboard.”
Review the “Review Request” email for deadlines and manuscript details.
Download the PDF file securely within OJS (do not share or forward).
Evaluate according to the criteria above; complete the online “Review Form.”
Upload annotated files only if necessary, ensuring anonymity (no personal identifiers).
Submit your recommendation and comments; confirm completion in the OJS interface.

8. Reviewer Conduct and Professionalism

Provide reviews in a professional, constructive, and impartial manner.
Avoid hostile or dismissive language.
Focus on methodological quality, evidence, and clarity.
Do not contact authors directly under any circumstances.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

AI tools may assist in grammar checking or reference formatting but must not be used to generate or summarize confidential review content. Reviewers remain solely responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their evaluations.

10. Plagiarism and Ethical Vigilance

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research, they should notify the handling editor immediately. Reviewers should not make direct accusations in their report; instead, flag the concern discreetly within the confidential “Comments to Editor” section.

11. Evaluation Criteria Summary

Evaluation Area	Key Points to Consider
Originality	Is the study novel and within ABSE’s scope?
Scientific Rigor	Are the methods sound, reproducible, and adequately described?
Data Presentation	Are results clear, accurate, and properly supported?
References	Are citations relevant and current (preferably 2020-2025)?
Language & Clarity	Is the text coherent, free of bias, and grammatically correct?

12. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete assignments within the agreed deadline (typically two weeks). If extra time is needed, contact the editorial office promptly. Consistent lateness may affect future invitations.

13. Anonymity and Blind Review

ABSE uses a double-blind system. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or reveal their own identity. Uploaded files should not contain metadata, tracked changes, or comments showing reviewer information.

14. Reporting Misconduct or Breach

Reviewers witnessing unethical conduct, conflicts, or data misuse should report the incident confidentially to the Ethics Committee. All reports are handled under COPE confidentiality protocols.

15. Recognition and Acknowledgment

ABSE values reviewer contributions. Annual reviewer certificates and optional listings in the “Thank You to Reviewers” section acknowledge outstanding service (subject to reviewer consent).

16. Post-Review Conduct

Do not contact authors or share the decision outcome externally.
Destroy all manuscript copies after review completion.
Maintain professionalism if later assigned to re-review a revised version.

17. Confidentiality Statement

“Peer review relies on trust. Every reviewer has an ethical duty to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and fairness of the evaluation process.”

18. Support and Contact

Reviewer Assistance: [email protected]
Ethics Queries: [email protected]
Editorial Office: Annals of Biomedical Science and Engineering (ABSE), USA

Reviewer Guidelines