Peer review process

All manuscripts submitted to Innovative Biosystems and Bioengineering are read by the associate editor. Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria and the content of which match with the journal’s aims and scope are sent for formal review.

When assigned a new submission, the associate editor checks the one for its completeness and adherence to the Guide for Authors. Our journal will first check the plagiarism of a manuscript by using UniCheck after it is submitted. The high level of similarity could cause the manuscript rejection (we read the whole paper and check which part is taken from other papers).

The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to pass a paper for review or reject it without further evaluation. The author is normally informed within 15 business days of assignment to the associate editor.

Authors may indicate a limited number of scientists who should not review the paper. Excluded scientists must be identified by name. Authors may also suggest referees; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed.

All submitted manuscripts are sent for double-blind peer review to two expert reviewers. By policy, authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process and referees are not identified to the authors, except at the request of the referee.

Alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time. Authors will be informed when editors decide further review is required.

The average duration of the peer review (a reviewer's initial feedback) is 1-1.5 months.

The revised version is sent back to the original referees for re-review. The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter that includes a point-by-point response to referees' comments and an explanation of how the manuscript has been changed.

Authors must provide a response to the remarks and comments of the peer reviewer(s) within 3 weeks of receiving the feedback. If for objective reasons (for example, the authors are asked to undertake major revisions) they need more time to work on the article, this should be agreed with the managing editor. Otherwise (in case of non-compliance with the terms of work on the article), we reserve the right to withdraw this article from further consideration.

The final decision to recommend the manuscript for publication is taken by the editorial staff on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers are notified promptly.

Handling papers from editorial board members

The member(s) of the editorial board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. This represents a potential conflict of interest, especially in cases of submissions from decision-making editors. 

During the review process, submitters will not engage in the selection of reviewers and decision process. The review process will be supervised and decisions made by a senior editor who will act independently of other editors. In some cases, the review process will be handled by an outside independent expert to minimize possible bias in reviewing submissions from members of the editorial board.

In order to ensure transparent and impartial treatment of such manuscripts, they will be subject to the following:

(1) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will be subject to the double blind peer review and the Editor(s) will not have access to information regarding their papers beyond that available to all authors.

(2) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will be reviewed by a minimum of two external peer reviewers.

(3) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts are treated as all submissions to the journal and may be subject to the full range of editorial decisions: reject without peer review, multiple revisions, reject after revision and/or accept.

(4) If accepted, member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will carry a note to the reader showing how transparent the reviewing process had been.