JBPT ensures rigorous scientific integrity through a comprehensive editorial screening and double-blind peer review structure aligned with COPE, ICMJE, and HEC standards.
The Journal of Biomolecules, Pathogenesis and Therapeutics (JBPT) strictly operates under a Double-Blind Peer Review System to protect the integrity of evaluations. Authors remain completely anonymous to reviewers, and reviewers remain completely anonymous to authors. Editorial staff ensure full structural metadata anonymization before manuscripts route outside the internal environment.
Reviewers and editors evaluate submissions solely based on scientific validity, originality, methodological depth, ethical compliance, and direct relevance to the journal's scope, independent of author nationality, affiliation, gender, or ethnicity.
Authors upload materials through the OJS digital workspace. Submissions must strictly contain complete file configurations alongside verified declarations covering active authorship parameters, institutional bioethics committee credentials, conflict updates, funding channels, and raw data availability.
The Editorial Office executes systematic preliminary checks to verify tracking scopes, author instruction alignment, file integrity, reporting specifications, and methodology foundations. Originality validation is checked utilizing Turnitin software. Manuscripts showing an un-permissible Similarity Index (SI) higher than 18% excluding references or fundamental ethical non-compliance are returned to authors for correction. In case of 25% or more SI manuscripts undergo immediate desk rejection.
⏱ Processing Ceiling: Completed within 0–6 days from initial submission log.
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor checks the work for novelty, scientific importance, design rigor, and statistical appropriateness. At this checkpoint, manuscripts are either advanced to peer review, returned to authors for pre-review revisions, or formally desk rejected.
⏱ Hard Processing Target: Final Initial Editorial Decision is issued within 10 days.
Advanced manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent external expert reviewers matching the field criteria. Editors actively prioritize and recruit international experts to ensure global quality benchmarking. Sponsoring review experts must declare a complete absence of personal, financial, or institutional conflicts before accessing anonymized tracking materials.
Assigned review specialists objectively analyze study designs, data interpretations, ethics, and clarity metrics to issue a formal publication recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
⏱ Processing Window: Active evaluation loops are maintained between 04–08 weeks.
Reviewer reports are anonymized and compiled. The Handling Editor structures a notification matrix for the authors. If corrections are requested, authors are granted a 1–2 weeks window to submit a point-by-point response alongside tracked-changes files. Revised works are then re-evaluated by editors or sent back for a second round of external peer review.
⏱ Total Peer Review Cycle Tracking: Completed within a strict 06–08 weeks processing window.
The final publication decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief. This judgment is reached after checking revision accuracy against rigorous journal compliance guidelines, scientific validity metrics, and ethics standards. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
⏱ Cumulative Workflow Completion: Final Editorial Acceptance is achieved within 08–12 weeks from log-in.
Accepted papers undergo immediate professional copyediting, technical formatting checks, typesetting, and author galley proof sign-off. A unique trackable Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is generated, and the article is launched permanently online via open-access hosting under our parent publisher, MSAR Institute.
Reviewers must maintain absolute confidentiality, supply objective evidence-backed assessments within a standard 21-day timeline, and immediately report any hidden instances of data manipulation or textual plagiarism.
Editors operate under strict transparency rules, ensuring conflict tracking is handled openly and decisions are based solely on academic grounds.
Editorial Board Endogeny Firewall: Submissions tracking back to active Chief Editors, Editorial Board panels, or journal reviewers are completely isolated and assigned to an independent senior editor entirely un-involved with the authors. Conflicted parties are fully barred from participating in reviewer choice, decision loops, or tracking dashboards.
Authors may challenge an adverse decision by providing a detailed, evidence-based written appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals are evaluated independently by an un-involved board official, and final binding determinations rest with the Editor-in-Chief.
