Review Guidelines

The International Journal for Research in Bioscience (IJRB) upholds ethical review standards aligned with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) , global research integrity frameworks, and responsible academic publishing practices.

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing. Reviewers serve as independent subject experts responsible for ensuring the rigor, originality, and scientific contribution of submitted manuscripts.

1. Peer Review Model

IJRB follows a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • Author identities remain anonymous to reviewers.
  • Reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors.
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Final editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and academic merit.

The review process is conducted fairly and without discrimination regarding nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Academic Integrity

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit
  • Assess theoretical contribution and methodological rigor
  • Avoid personal bias or ideological influence

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential intellectual property. Reviewers must:

  • Not share or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized parties
  • Not use unpublished data for personal research or professional gain
  • Delete manuscript files after the review is completed

Confidentiality obligations extend beyond the review process.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations if conflicts of interest exist, including:

  • Direct collaboration with authors within the past three years
  • Institutional affiliation overlap
  • Financial or funding relationships
  • Competitive academic or commercial interests
  • Personal relationships affecting impartiality

All potential conflicts should be disclosed to the editorial office before proceeding with the review.

4. Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential research misconduct, including:

  • Plagiarism or substantial similarity
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Manipulated images, tables, or statistical results
  • Redundant publication or salami slicing
  • Undisclosed AI-generated research content
  • Citation manipulation or coercive citations
  • Ethical violations in human or animal research

Concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office and not communicated directly to the authors.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Theoretical Contribution

  • Clear identification of research gaps
  • Advancement of scientific knowledge
  • Contribution to bioscience research

Methodological Quality

  • Appropriate research design
  • Valid data collection techniques
  • Robust statistical or qualitative analysis
  • Transparency and replicability

Practical Relevance

  • Scientific significance
  • Application to biological research
  • Contribution to policy or applied bioscience

Literature Quality

  • Use of high-quality peer-reviewed references
  • Inclusion of recent international research literature
  • Balanced and ethical citation practices

6. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • Manuscripts must not be uploaded to AI platforms or external tools.
  • Generative AI should not compromise manuscript confidentiality.
  • AI-assisted language editing must not alter the intellectual integrity of the review.

7. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

  • Reviews should normally be completed within 6–7 weeks.
  • Extensions should be requested if additional time is required.
  • Professional, constructive, and respectful feedback is expected.

8. Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject