Journal of Biomedicine and Biochemistry (JBB) applies a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review system in full alignment with the Web of Science Core Collection editorial and peer-review standards . Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and is essential for ensuring the validity, originality, and scientific merit of published research. JBB recognizes peer review as a professional responsibility that requires objectivity, confidentiality, and academic integrity.

 

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

JBB operates a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This policy ensures independence of evaluation and prevents bias related to author identity, academic reputation, institutional affiliation, nationality, or gender.

The double-blind model supports fairness, consistency, and credibility in editorial decision-making, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. All manuscripts submitted to JBB are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. The journal strives to complete the peer-review process efficiently, with an average turnaround time of approximately two weeks, without compromising review quality.

Final publication decisions are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ reports, editorial judgment, and the journal’s scope and ethical standards.

 

Reviewer Selection and Author Suggestions

Authors are required to suggest two potential reviewers at the time of manuscript submission. Suggested reviewers must:

1- Possess relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
2- Be independent of the authors and free from conflicts of interest.
3- Not be from the same institution as any of the authors.

The provision of reviewer suggestions does not guarantee their selection. JBB maintains full editorial independence in appointing reviewers, in accordance with Web of Science requirements.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Standards

Reviewers invited by JBB agree to comply with the following responsibilities and ethical obligations:

1- Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and constructively, providing detailed and evidence-based feedback.
2- Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance.
3- Submit review reports within the agreed timeframe.
4- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content.
5- Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest immediately to the editor.
6- Identify and report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, or other forms of research misconduct.
7- Refrain from using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.
8- Avoid direct communication with authors at any stage of the review process.
9- Not disclose their identity to the authors.
10- Not delegate the review to another individual without editorial approval.
11- Inform the editor if the manuscript is known to be under consideration elsewhere.
12- Prepare review reports in English only.
13-  When requested, contribute an editorial commentary related to the reviewed manuscript.

These principles are consistent with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, which JBB follows as part of its commitment to ethical publishing.

 

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1- Originality and novelty of the research.
2- Scientific soundness and methodological rigor.
3- Significance and contribution to the field.
4- Ethical compliance and integrity of the research.
5- Clarity, coherence, and logical structure of the manuscript.
6- Adherence to JBB author guidelines.
7- Accuracy and relevance of references.
8- Quality of language, grammar, and presentation.
9- Absence of plagiarism or other forms of scientific misconduct.

 

Recognition of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the scholarly quality and reputation of the Journal of Biomedicine and Biochemistry (JBB). JBB formally acknowledges the contribution of reviewers who participate in the peer-review process, in line with Web of Science Core Collection practices, while fully preserving reviewer anonymity.