Peer Review Policy

 

Peer Review Policy

Introduction
BioMedPha adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality and academic integrity of its publications. The peer review policy is designed to uphold the journal's commitment to disseminating high-quality, reliable, and impactful research in the fields of business dynamics and sustainability.

Types of Peer Review
BioMedPha employs a double-blind peer review system. In this process, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review and decision-making process. This ensures impartiality and fairness in evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.

Responsibilities of Authors

• Submission of Manuscripts: Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript submitted to BioMedPha is original, free of plagiarism, and has not been submitted or published elsewhere. All necessary permissions for data use, images, or other third-party content must be obtained before submission.
• Peer Review Process Participation: Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments constructively and promptly. If necessary, authors may be required to revise and resubmit their manuscripts for further review.
• Corrections and Revisions: If reviewers request revisions, authors must make the necessary changes and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified time frame. Authors should provide a detailed response to each reviewer’s comment to explain how the feedback was addressed.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript they are reviewing. They should not share or discuss the manuscript with others unless authorized by the editor.
• Objectivity and Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, novelty, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviews should be constructive, offering suggestions for improvement without personal bias or judgment.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the assigned time frame. If they are unable to do so, they should notify the editorial team as soon as possible.

Responsibilities of Editors

• Fair and Unbiased Decision-Making: Editors are responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and transparent. They must make editorial decisions based on the merit of the manuscript and the quality of the review received, without any personal or professional biases.
• Assignment of Reviewers: The editor assigns appropriate reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. The editor will ensure that the reviewers are qualified to evaluate the manuscript and are not conflicted in any way.
• Conflict of Interest: Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling a manuscript if they have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the authors.
• Final Decision: Based on the feedback received from reviewers, editors will make one of the following decisions:
• Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before final acceptance.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant changes and must undergo another round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in BioMedPha.

Peer Review Process

• Submission and Initial Evaluation: Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team to ensure it fits within the scope of the journal and adheres to the formatting guidelines. If the manuscript passes this initial check, it is sent for peer review.
• Peer Review: The manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the subject matter. These reviewers evaluate the quality, novelty, methodology, and relevance of the manuscript. Reviewers also assess the clarity, structure, and overall contribution of the paper to the field.
• Decision: Based on the reviews, the editor makes a decision on whether to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it. Authors are notified of the decision, along with detailed feedback from the reviewers and editor.
• Revisions and Resubmission: If revisions are requested, authors are given a specified time frame (usually 2-4 weeks) to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript. Authors must provide a detailed response to each reviewer’s comment, explaining the changes made to the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
• Final Acceptance: Once the revisions are made and the manuscript meets the required standards, it is accepted for publication. The author is notified of the acceptance, and the manuscript is prepared for publication in an upcoming issue.

Ethical Considerations

• Integrity: All manuscripts will be evaluated for scientific integrity. Any signs of misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification of results, will result in immediate rejection of the manuscript and possible reporting to the author's institution or funding body.
• Confidentiality: The identities of authors and reviewers will be kept confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers should not use information from the manuscript for personal gain.
• Transparency: The peer review process is transparent, and the journal follows best practices to ensure fairness and impartiality at every stage.

Appeals and Complaints

• Author Appeal: If authors disagree with the editorial decision or the reviewers’ comments, they may appeal the decision. The appeal must be based on clear reasoning and evidence, and the editor will review the appeal in consultation with the reviewers.
• Handling Complaints: Any complaints about the peer review process, reviewer conduct, or editorial decisions should be submitted to the journal’s editorial team. The team will investigate the complaint and take appropriate action if necessary.