JBPT adheres to the core recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and internationally accepted principles of responsible scholarly publishing.
The Journal of Biomolecules, Pathogenesis and Therapeutics (JBPT) follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and ethical standards of all published manuscripts. Editors ensure all manuscripts are evaluated impartially, without influence from authors’ identities, institutions, or personal relationships.
All submissions first undergo initial editorial screening by the Editor or Editorial Team to assess scope fit, compliance with journal guidelines, academic quality, and ethical considerations. Manuscripts that are out of scope, poorly written, ethically non-compliant, or affected by unresolvable conflicts of interest may be rejected at this stage, while others may be returned to authors for technical or formatting corrections before evaluation.
| Item | Policy |
|---|---|
| Peer Review Type | Double-Blind Peer Review |
| Reviewers | Minimum of two independent expert reviewers |
| Final Decision | Editor-in-Chief or designated Senior Editor |
| Revision Rounds | Minor or Major Revision, with additional review where required |
| Conflict of Interest | Mandatory disclosure by editors and reviewers before participation |
| Ethical Standards | COPE Core Practices and ICMJE Recommendations |
| Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Reviewers must not upload or disclose manuscript content to generative AI tools or third-party automated systems. |
| Confidentiality | Maintained throughout the editorial and peer review process. |
JBPT utilizes a strict Double-Blind Peer Review System:
* All editorial decisions are made independently, without taking into account the nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, or personal relationships of the authors.
Manuscripts passing initial editorial screening are sent for review to at least two independent content-expert reviewers. As a developing international platform, JBPT is actively committed to building geographic diversity within its peer-review networks. While the journal utilizes independent subject experts based on their academic publications and no conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers, but the Editorial Team retains final authority in reviewer selection.
Reviewers are selected based on the following strict criteria:
Note: The Editor retains final discretion to utilize a third reviewer, a specialized statistical reviewer, or methodologists as needed. While authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers, the Editorial Office retains final selection authority.
Based on reviewer evaluations, one of the following determinations is issued:
When major revisions are required, revised manuscripts are re-routed back to the original reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief or Senior Editors retain ultimate authority regarding final publication outcomes.
Editors are responsible for providing a non-biased and anonymous peer review, choosing appropriate reviewers, upholding editorial integrity based on scientific grounds, managing conflicts of interest transparently, and maintaining total editorial independence. JBPT strictly follows COPE recommendations when addressing ethical concerns, corrections, retractions, or appeals.
Editorial Independence: Manuscripts submitted by Editors, Editorial Board members, and reviewers are processed through a completely independent editorial firewall. All editorial decisions and the selection of reviewers for such manuscripts are made without the involvement of any persons who have a conflict of interest.
Confidential correspondence, submitted manuscripts, comments from reviewers, and internal editorial files are handled with absolute confidentiality. Only individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process are granted access to this information.
Authors may submit a detailed, evidence-based appeal to the Editorial Office to address adverse editorial decisions. An editor completely independent of the original decision-making process will evaluate the appeal. The ultimate decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
