Editorial Policies | Insights in Biology and Medicine

Insights in Biology and Medicine maintains rigorous editorial policies to ensure the highest standards of scholarly publishing. These policies govern all aspects of the publication process, from manuscript submission to post-publication corrections, and are designed to uphold scientific integrity, ethical standards, and editorial excellence.

Editorial Independence and Integrity

Editorial Autonomy

The journal maintains complete editorial independence from its publisher and any commercial interests. Editorial decisions are based solely on:

Scientific quality and methodological rigor
Originality and significance of the research
Clarity of presentation and adherence to reporting standards
Relevance to the journal's scope and readership

Non-Interference Clause

No external parties, including the publisher, sponsors, or institutional affiliates, may influence editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over all content decisions, guided by peer review recommendations and editorial board counsel.

Conflict of Interest Management

All participants in the publication process must disclose potential conflicts of interest:

Author Disclosures

Authors must declare all potential conflicts in the manuscript, including:

Financial relationships with organizations that could gain or lose financially
Personal relationships that could influence the work
Academic competitors whose work is directly challenged
Institutional affiliations that could be perceived as influencing the research

Editor and Reviewer Disclosures

Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have:

Recent collaboration or publication with authors
Financial interests in the research outcomes
Personal relationships that could compromise objectivity
Institutional conflicts with the submitting organization

Manuscript Handling Procedures

Submission and Initial Screening

1 Technical Check

All submissions undergo automated and manual technical screening for:

Formatting compliance and completeness
Plagiarism screening using iThenticate software
Scope alignment with journal aims
Basic ethical requirements fulfillment

Decision Point: Manuscripts failing technical checks are returned to authors for correction before proceeding to editorial assessment.

2 Editorial Assessment

The handling editor evaluates manuscripts for:

Scientific significance and novelty
Methodological soundness
Appropriateness for peer review
Compliance with ethical standards

Decision Point: Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if they do not meet basic quality thresholds or fall outside journal scope. Authors receive specific feedback explaining the decision.

Peer Review Process

Single-Blind Peer Review

The journal employs a single-blind peer review system where:

Reviewers know author identities
Authors do not know reviewer identities
Reviewer confidentiality is maintained throughout the process

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

Expertise in the specific research area
Publication record in relevant fields
Previous review quality and timeliness
Absence of conflicts of interest
Geographic and institutional diversity

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide constructive, objective feedback
Evaluate scientific validity and methodology
Assess originality and significance
Identify ethical concerns or data integrity issues
Maintain confidentiality of the review process
Complete reviews within the specified timeframe (21 days)

Authorship Policies

Authorship Criteria

The journal follows ICMJE authorship criteria. Authors must meet all four conditions:

Substantial contributions to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation

Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

Final approval of the version to be published

Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Example of Inappropriate Authorship: Including department chairs or senior researchers who did not contribute substantially to the research ("gift authorship") or omitting researchers who made significant contributions ("ghost authorship").

Author Contributions Statement

All research articles must include a detailed author contributions statement using the CRediT taxonomy:

Role	Description	Required
Conceptualization	Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims	Optional
Methodology	Development or design of methodology; creation of models	Required if applicable
Formal Analysis	Application of statistical, mathematical, computational techniques	Required
Investigation	Conducting research and investigation process	Required
Writing - Original Draft	Preparation, creation of published work	Required
Writing - Review & Editing	Critical review and revision	Required

Research and Publication Ethics

Data Integrity and Reproducibility

Data Availability

Authors must:

Make data underlying findings available
Deposit data in appropriate repositories
Include data availability statements
Provide code for computational analyses when applicable

Image Integrity

All images must:

Accurately represent original data
Avoid inappropriate manipulation
Maintain original data context
Be accompanied by complete capture information

Prohibited Practices: Splicing gels from different experiments without clear indication, removing bands from blots, adjusting brightness/contrast to obscure background, reusing images without proper acknowledgment.

Clinical Trial Registration

All clinical trials must be registered in approved registries before participant enrollment:

Required Registries: ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform
Registration Timing: Before first participant enrollment
Reporting Standards: CONSORT guidelines for randomized trials
Data Sharing: Individual participant data when ethically appropriate

Appeals and Complaints

Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions under specific circumstances:

1 Formal Appeal Request

Authors must submit a formal appeal within 30 days of decision, including:

Specific reasons for appealing the decision
Point-by-point response to reviewer comments
Additional evidence or clarification
Manuscript ID and decision date

2 Appeal Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or designated senior editor reviews:

Original decision rationale
Appeal justification
Reviewer comments and author responses
Manuscript quality and significance

3 Appeal Outcome

Possible outcomes include:

Upholding original decision with detailed explanation
Requesting additional peer review
Offering resubmission with major revisions
Overturning decision and proceeding to acceptance

Complaint Handling

The journal handles complaints through a formal process:

Complaint Type	Handling Procedure	Timeline
Editorial Process	Handled by Editor-in-Chief with editorial board consultation	14 days
Ethical Concerns	Referred to Ethics Committee with external expertise if needed	30 days
Publishing Ethics	Follows COPE guidelines with documented investigation	60 days
Author Disputes	Mediation by senior editors with institutional input	21 days

Corrections and Retractions

Correction Policy

The journal publishes corrections when errors affect interpretation:

Correction Types

Erratum: Publisher-introduced errors
Corrigendum: Author-introduced errors
Expression of Concern: When investigation is ongoing

Correction Process

Errors reported by authors, readers, or identified internally
Assessment by editorial team for significance
Preparation of correction notice with clear explanation
Linking between original article and correction
Update of online versions when appropriate

Retraction Policy

Articles may be retracted for serious ethical breaches or invalid results:

Unreliable findings due to error or misconduct

Plagiarism or redundant publication

Ethical violations in research conduct

Data fabrication or falsification

Authorship disputes unable to be resolved

Retraction Notice Requirements: Clear statement of retraction reason, identification of retracted article, transparency about who is retracting, maintenance of original article with retraction watermark.

Post-Publication Discussions

Letters to the Editor

The journal encourages post-publication discussion through letters:

Content: Constructive comments on published articles
Length: Maximum 1,000 words with 10 references
Timing: Within 12 months of original publication
Process: Peer review and author response published together

Social Media and Online Commentary

The journal monitors and may respond to discussions occurring on:

PubMed Commons (when available)
Journal website comments
Academic social networks
Professional discussion forums

Substantive concerns raised through these channels may trigger formal evaluation following our corrections policy.

Editorial Board Governance

Board Composition and Terms

Role	Term Length	Selection Process	Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief	5 years (renewable once)	Publisher appointment with board input	Overall editorial direction, final decision authority
Deputy Editors	3 years (renewable)	Editor-in-Chief appointment	Section oversight, handling complex decisions
Associate Editors	2 years (renewable)	Editorial board nomination	Manuscript handling, reviewer selection
Editorial Board Members	2 years (renewable)	Editor-in-Chief invitation	Strategic advice, peer review, journal promotion

Performance Monitoring

Editorial performance is regularly assessed using:

Decision Timelines: Tracking time from submission to decision
Acceptance Rates: Monitoring by subject area and region
Author Satisfaction: Post-decision surveys
Reviewer Feedback: Quality and timeliness assessments
Ethical Compliance: Adherence to COPE guidelines

Transparency and Accountability

Public Availability of Policies

All editorial policies are publicly available and regularly updated:

Clear publication on journal website

Regular review and update cycle (annual)

Alignment with international standards (COPE, ICMJE, WAME)

Translation available for key policies

Archival of previous policy versions

Annual Reporting

The journal publishes annual reports including:

Submission and acceptance statistics
Editorial timeline performance
Geographic diversity of authors and reviewers
Ethical cases handled and outcomes
Policy changes and implementation
Reader and author satisfaction metrics

Implementation and Compliance

Staff Training

All editorial staff receive comprehensive training on:

Publication ethics and COPE guidelines
Handling ethical dilemmas and conflicts
Peer review management best practices
Data protection and confidentiality
Cultural sensitivity and inclusive practices

Policy Review Cycle

Editorial policies undergo regular review:

1 Annual Internal Review

Editorial team assesses policy effectiveness and identifies needed updates

2 Stakeholder Consultation

Feedback sought from authors, reviewers, readers, and editorial board

3 Editorial Board Approval

Proposed changes reviewed and approved by full editorial board

4 Implementation and Communication

Updated policies implemented with clear communication to all stakeholders

Policy Inquiries: Questions about editorial policies or requests for clarification should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected].

Ethical Concerns: Suspected ethical violations should be reported to the Ethics Committee at [email protected].