The editorial board of Int. J.Exp. Biomed. Res. is very thankful to all the expert reviewers for their valuable time and efforts invested during the manuscript review and preparation of the expert reviewer report. We appreciate your efforts in assuring the quality of the manuscript that will be eventually accepted or rejected for publication in this journal based on your expert reviewer report and thereby helping us to maintain the quality and standards of this journal.
The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The editorial board strives to ensure that the review process is double-blinded and conducted efficiently in a fair and unbiased manner.
The reviewers shall accept a review assignment from the editor if they could accomplish the task within the timeframe and communicate effectively to the editor in advance of the deadlines. if he/she requires additional time to complete the review, the firm timeline required to complete the review process shall be informed to the editor. If they wish to decline the invitation they can use the opportunity to recommend competent alternative reviewers to the editor.
The reviewers initially receive a review request from the editorial board along with the abstract to seek his/her willingness to accept. The full paper will be sent only after accepting a review assignment. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest (e.g working on similar ideas), he/she shall discuss the potential conflicts with the editor before accepting or do not accept on the review assignment.
Once accepted to review, treat the unpublished manuscript as a confidential document and it's advisable not to share the information with others without seeking prior permission from the editor. If permitted to proceed, but avoid electronic sharing of the manuscripts and the reviewer shall ensure that the person maintains confidentiality on the unpublished data and the recommendations made on the manuscript.
The editorial board requests the reviewers to provide feedback reports for both the editors and authors, to help guide the former in making the final decision about the manuscript and the latter on how to improve their manuscript. Point-by-point comments will help the authors to read and respond.
The reviewer shall not involve in language editing or presentation of the manuscript, but instead, shall make suggestions to the author to improve readability, and write to the editor if the scientific language makes it too difficult to understand by the readers.
The reviewers shall provide a clear detailed report to the editor on his/her recommendation about the manuscript as (i) Reject the manuscript; (ii) Accept the manuscript; (iii) Revise and resubmit the manuscript after responding to the peer reviewer's comments. In such a case, the editors will ask the same reviewers to re-review for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. Please note that the editor allows authors one round of revision, if the revisions are not considered satisfactory during re-review, then the manuscript may be rejected.
A constructive scientific report to the authors shall be submitted to the editor highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, novelty, advancement in knowledge, and the major flaws (if any) in the manuscript. This will help them to improve the contents of the article based on your recommendations. Avoid inappropriate personal criticism about the authors in the report. If the reviewers feel unqualified to address particular areas in the manuscript, please include a statement to identify these areas in your report.
Read carefully the review report before submitting it to the editor. Ensure the report is free from grammatical errors and does not give any clues to the author that reveals your identity. If English is not your strong point during the preparation of reports, have someone else who is well aware of the manuscript and prepare the review report without violating any rules laid to the reviewer.
Your comments to the author and the editors shall be submitted to the editor and the editorial board shall further communicated to the authors regarding the final decision of the manuscript.