Peer Review and Editorial Process

Advanced Journal of Biomedicine & Medicine (AJBM) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system to ensure that all published articles meet high scientific and ethical standards. The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations.

Overview

All manuscripts submitted to AJBM undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a double-blind peer review by independent experts in the relevant field. Editorial decisions are made solely on academic merit, scientific quality, and ethical compliance.

1. Editorial Workflow

1.1 Initial Screening

• All manuscripts are submitted through AJBM’s online manuscript submission system.
• The Editorial Office checks each submission for completeness, formatting, scope relevance, and plagiarism (using iThenticate).
• The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor assesses:
  • Alignment with AJBM’s aims and scope,
  • Originality and scientific merit,
  • Ethical and research integrity compliance,
  • Suitability for external review.
• Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) without external review.

1.2 Assignment to Handling Editor

If the manuscript passes screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor (Editorial Board member) with expertise in the subject area and no conflict of interest. The Handling Editor coordinates the peer-review process and recommends a decision.

1.3 Reviewer Selection

• Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent external reviewers.
• Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and prior reviewer performance.
• Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment.
• AJBM maintains an international reviewer pool and may use recognized scholarly databases to identify suitable reviewers.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

AJBM operates a double-blind review system to promote objectivity and minimize bias:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the names or affiliations of the authors.

This process reduces potential bias related to gender, institution, nationality, or academic reputation.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the following points:

• Originality and novelty of the work
• Clarity and relevance of the research question
• Appropriateness of study design and methodology
• Ethical soundness (IRB/IACUC approval, consent)
• Statistical rigor and accuracy of data interpretation
• Significance to biomedicine, clinical medicine, or translational research
• Quality of writing, organization, and referencing

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers submit a structured report and recommend one of the following:

1. Accept (Publish Unaltered) – Scientifically sound and ready for publication.
2. Minor Revision – Acceptable after minor corrections or clarifications.
3. Major Revision – Requires substantial revision, additional data, or improved analysis before reconsideration.
4. Reject – Does not meet AJBM’s scientific or ethical standards.

5. Editorial Decisions

Once all reviewer reports are received, the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the editorial decision:

• Accept: Manuscript proceeds to technical editing and publication.
• Minor Revision: Authors revise according to reviewer comments; the editor verifies compliance.
• Major Revision: Authors submit a revised version with a response letter; the manuscript may be re-sent to reviewers.
• Reject: Authors receive decision and reviewer feedback.

If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is usually rejected. Editorial decisions are final and are based on merit, validity, and ethical integrity.

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors asked to revise must:

• Submit a point-by-point response to each reviewer and editor comment.
• Highlight or track changes in the revised manuscript.
• Resubmit the revised version within the specified deadline (normally 4 weeks).

Failure to resubmit within the deadline may lead to withdrawal of the manuscript.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of the decision.

The appeal must include:

• A written justification for reconsideration
• Any new data or clarifications

Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor or ethics advisor not involved in the original decision, in accordance with COPE’s appeals and complaints policy. Decisions on appeals are final.

8. Reviewer and Editor Conduct

• All reviewers and editors must maintain strict confidentiality.
• Reviewers must not share, copy, or use unpublished data for personal or professional gain.
• Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have personal, academic, or financial conflicts of interest.
• The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are independent and unbiased.

9. Post-Acceptance

• The Editorial Office performs a final ethical and technical compliance check.
• The manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, and proofing.
• Authors receive page proofs for final approval.
• Accepted articles are assigned a DOI (Crossref) and published online under the journal’s CC BY 4.0 license.

10. Average Review Timeline

Initial editorial screening	2–3 weeks
External peer review	4–6 weeks
First decision	Within 8 weeks of submission
Online publication after acceptance	2–3 weeks

Note: Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

11. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Personal data of authors, reviewers, and editors are handled in compliance with applicable data-protection regulations (including GDPR) and AJBM’s privacy policy.