Peer Review Policy

At Biomed Thought, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor in our publication process. To ensure the quality and reliability of the research we publish, all submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough and unbiased peer review process. This Peer Review Policy outlines our approach to peer review, including the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors.

1. Peer Review Process:

  • Double-Blind Peer Review: Biomed Thought employs a double-blind peer review system, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This helps to ensure impartiality, reduce bias, and maintain the integrity of the review process.

  • Reviewers’ Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant subject area. We aim to select reviewers who have substantial knowledge in the field of the manuscript and can provide constructive feedback. Reviewers are typically chosen from Biomed Thought’s extensive pool of experts and may also be invited based on recommendations from the editorial team or authors.

  • Objective Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific quality, novelty, relevance to the field, methodology, and clarity. Reviews should be objective, based solely on the content of the manuscript and the merit of the research presented.

2. Responsibilities of Authors:

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors are required to submit only original, unpublished manuscripts. Biomed Thought uses plagiarism detection tools to ensure that the manuscripts do not contain plagiarized content. Authors must properly cite all sources of information, data, and ideas that are not their own.

  • Submission of Manuscripts: Authors must submit manuscripts that meet the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines. Incomplete or incorrectly formatted manuscripts may be returned to the authors for correction before the review process begins.

  • Ethical Considerations: Authors must ensure that their research adheres to ethical guidelines. Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must provide evidence of ethical approval from a relevant institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. The corresponding author must also ensure that all co-authors have agreed to the final manuscript before submission.

  • Revisions: If a manuscript is returned to authors for revision, they are expected to address all reviewer comments and suggestions thoughtfully and thoroughly. Authors must resubmit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential. They should not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers must not use the manuscript for personal gain or benefit.

  • Impartiality: Reviewers should provide an unbiased and objective assessment of the manuscript based solely on its scientific merit and relevance to the field. Personal conflicts of interest should be declared, and reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing any manuscripts where they have a conflict.

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive, detailed, and respectful feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts. Comments should be focused on the quality of the research, its contribution to the field, and any areas where further clarification or improvement is needed.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their review within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible. Timely reviews ensure that the editorial process moves forward smoothly.

4. Responsibilities of Editors:

  • Editorial Independence: Editors of Biomed Thought are responsible for making final decisions on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to a manuscript. Editorial decisions are made based on the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the research, as well as the feedback provided by reviewers.

  • Fairness and Transparency: Editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, based solely on scientific merit. Editors are required to maintain transparency in the peer review process and communicate decisions promptly to authors.

  • Ethical Oversight: Editors must ensure that manuscripts adhere to ethical standards, including proper citation of sources, the ethical treatment of human and animal subjects, and the integrity of the research data. If ethical violations are identified, editors will investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

  • Handling of Conflicts of Interest: Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the review and decision-making process if they have a personal or professional conflict with a manuscript. Any conflicts of interest among reviewers or editors should be declared to maintain the integrity of the review process.

5. Types of Peer Review Decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any revisions or after minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication, but minor revisions are required. The manuscript will be reviewed again after the revisions have been made.
  • Major Revisions Required: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be considered for publication. The revised manuscript will undergo another round of peer review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication, either due to methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or insufficient scientific merit.

6. Open Peer Review Option:

  • Optional Open Peer Review: Biomed Thought offers authors the option of participating in open peer review, where the identities of the reviewers are disclosed to the authors after the manuscript has been published. This option is voluntary and should be selected at the time of submission.

7. Post-Publication Review:

  • Corrections and Retractions: If errors or ethical issues are identified after publication, authors may submit a request for a correction or retraction. The editorial office will investigate these issues and, if necessary, issue a correction or retraction notice in accordance with COPE guidelines.

  • Transparency in Post-Publication Process: If a retraction or correction occurs, the original article will remain accessible in the archive, with a clear notice explaining the reason for the retraction or correction.

8. Commitment to Ethical Publishing:

Biomed Thought adheres to the ethical publishing standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our peer review process is designed to maintain the highest levels of fairness, transparency, and academic integrity in the publication of research.