Peer Review Policy

BioMedPha is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, integrity, objectivity, and transparency through a rigorous double-blind peer review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their relevance to the journal's scope, scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

BioMedPha follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience, independence, and ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment.

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the fairness or independence of the review.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to evaluate manuscripts for:

  • originality and scientific significance;
  • relevance to the journal's scope;
  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology;
  • accuracy and clarity of results;
  • validity of analysis and conclusions;
  • ethical compliance;
  • quality of scientific presentation; and
  • relevance and accuracy of references.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be published.

6. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should address reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the changes made.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

7. Conflicting Reviews

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional independent review, or assess the available reports before reaching a decision.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal or professional advantage.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest related to a manuscript. Where a conflict could affect impartiality, another qualified reviewer or editor will be assigned.

10. Ethical Concerns

If reviewers or editors identify possible plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate publication, or other research misconduct, the matter will be investigated according to the journal's publication ethics procedures.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, reviewer assessments, and suitability for BioMedPha.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any submitted manuscript, and editorial decisions are made independently and without inappropriate influence.