Peer Review Policy
Insights in Biology and Medicine employs a rigorous single-blind peer review system to ensure the publication of high-quality, valid, and significant research. Our peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors, maintain scientific integrity, and uphold the highest standards of scholarly publishing in biology and medicine.
Peer Review Model
Single-Blind Peer Review
We utilize a single-blind peer review system characterized by:
| Aspect | Implementation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer Anonymity | Reviewers know author identities; authors do not know reviewer identities | Encourages candid feedback and protects reviewers from potential conflicts |
| Author Identity | Author names and affiliations visible to reviewers | Allows assessment of author expertise and potential conflicts |
| Confidentiality | Strict protection of reviewer identities and review content | Maintains integrity of the review process |
Alternative Review Options
While we primarily use single-blind review, we offer optional alternatives:
Open Peer Review (Optional)
Authors may opt for open peer review, which includes:
- Published reviewer names with articles
- Public review reports alongside published articles
- Author-reviewer interaction during revision
- Increased transparency and recognition for reviewers
Note: Open peer review must be selected during submission and requires consent from all reviewers.
Peer Review Process Timeline
Standard Review Timeline
Editorial check for scope, formatting, and basic quality. Desk rejection if manuscript doesn't meet basic criteria.
Assignment to handling editor with relevant expertise. Editor assesses suitability for peer review.
Invitation of 3-5 potential reviewers. Target 2-3 accepted invitations per manuscript.
Reviewers complete assessments within 21 days. Automatic reminders sent at 7 and 14 days.
Handling editor evaluates reviews and makes recommendation. Editor-in-Chief makes final decision.
Authors notified of decision with reviewer comments and editorial guidance.
Reviewer Selection Criteria
Reviewer Qualifications
Reviewers are selected based on comprehensive criteria:
Expertise Requirements
- Advanced degree (PhD, MD, or equivalent) in relevant field
- Demonstrated research expertise through publications
- Specific knowledge of manuscript subject matter
- Familiarity with relevant methodologies and techniques
Performance Metrics
- Previous review quality and thoroughness
- Timeliness of review completion
- Constructiveness of feedback
- Objectivity and fairness in assessment
Diversity and Inclusion
We actively promote diversity in our reviewer pool:
| Diversity Dimension | Implementation | Goals |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic | Global reviewer recruitment across 6 continents | 30% reviewers from developing countries |
| Career Stage | Inclusion of early-career and senior researchers | 25% early-career reviewer participation |
| Gender Balance | Active monitoring of gender representation | 50% women reviewer participation |
| Institutional | Broad institutional representation | No more than 20% from any single institution |
Reviewer Responsibilities
Core Review Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive assessment across multiple dimensions:
| Assessment Area | Key Considerations | Rating Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Originality | Novelty of research question, approach, findings | 1-5 (Low to High) |
| Significance | Importance to field, potential impact | 1-5 (Low to High) |
| Methodology | Appropriateness of methods, statistical rigor | 1-5 (Poor to Excellent) |
| Data Quality | Data integrity, reproducibility, analysis | 1-5 (Poor to Excellent) |
| Clarity | Writing quality, organization, figure quality | 1-5 (Poor to Excellent) |
| Ethical Standards | Compliance with ethical guidelines | Pass/Fail with comments |
Review Report Requirements
Reviewers must provide structured feedback including:
Editorial Decision Framework
Decision Categories
Editors make decisions based on reviewer recommendations and their own assessment:
| Decision | Criteria | Frequency | Next Steps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | Outstanding quality, minimal revisions needed | 8% | Proceed to production |
| Minor Revision | Strong paper needing minor improvements | 22% | 21-day revision period |
| Major Revision | Potentially acceptable with substantial changes | 45% | 60-day revision period |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws or outside scope | 25% | Author may appeal |
Conflict of Interest Management
Conflict Identification
Reviewers must declare conflicts in the following categories:
| Conflict Type | Examples | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| Personal | Family relationships, close friendships | Immediate recusal |
| Professional | Current collaborators, recent co-authors | Declaration and potential recusal |
| Financial | Funding relationships, commercial interests | Mandatory declaration |
| Academic | Direct competitors, institutional rivalries | Assessment of objectivity |
Quality Assurance Measures
Review Quality Monitoring
We employ multiple systems to ensure review quality:
Reviewer Performance Tracking
- Timeliness metrics and completion rates
- Author feedback on review helpfulness
- Editor assessment of review quality
- Inter-reviewer consistency analysis
Continuous Improvement
- Regular reviewer training and guidelines updates
- Feedback mechanisms for reviewer development
- Periodic review of review criteria and forms
- Benchmarking against industry standards
Appeals and Reconsideration
Appeal Process
Authors submit formal appeal with point-by-point response to reviewer comments and justification for reconsideration.
Editor-in-Chief reviews appeal, original decision, and new information. May consult original reviewers or seek additional opinions.
Final decision communicated to authors with detailed explanation. Possible outcomes include upholding original decision, offering resubmission, or proceeding with review.
Reviewer Recognition and Benefits
Reviewer Appreciation
We value our reviewers and provide multiple forms of recognition:
| Recognition Type | Benefits | Eligibility |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Recognition | Certificate of appreciation, public acknowledgment | Top 10% reviewers by quality and volume |
| Reviewer Discounts | 50% APC discount on next submission | Completion of 3+ reviews annually |
| ORCID Integration | Automatic recording of review activities | All reviewers with ORCID accounts |
| Editorial Opportunities | Consideration for editorial board positions | Exceptional reviewers demonstrating expertise |
Special Considerations
Exceptional Circumstances
We accommodate special situations in the review process:
Fast-Track Review
Available for manuscripts with exceptional significance or urgency:
- 14-day review timeline instead of standard 21 days
- Priority handling at all stages
- Requires justification and editor approval
- Limited to 5% of submissions annually
Statistical Review
Additional specialized review for complex statistical analyses:
- Mandatory for clinical trials and complex modeling
- Optional for other quantitative studies
- Conducted by statistical experts
- Focuses on methodological rigor and interpretation
Frequently Asked Questions
How are reviewers selected for my manuscript?
Reviewers are selected based on expertise matching your topic, publication record in relevant areas, previous review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest. We also consider geographic and career stage diversity. Authors may suggest reviewers during submission, though the editorial team makes final selections.
What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer's comments?
You should address all reviewer comments point-by-point in your revision. If you strongly disagree with specific comments, provide a respectful, evidence-based explanation in your response letter. The handling editor will evaluate your responses and make a final determination.
How long does the revision process typically take?
Minor revisions are generally given 21 days, while major revisions have 60 days. Extensions may be granted upon request with valid justification. The re-review process after revision typically takes 14-21 days, depending on reviewer availability.
Can I request exclusion of specific reviewers?
Yes, authors may request exclusion of up to three reviewers during submission if there are genuine conflicts of interest or past negative experiences. Please provide brief justification for each exclusion request.
How is reviewer bias monitored and addressed?
We monitor for potential bias through multiple mechanisms: comparison of reviews from different reviewers, editor assessment of review objectivity, author feedback, and statistical analysis of review patterns. Suspected bias is investigated and may result in reviewer education or removal from our database.
Policy Compliance and Updates
COPE Compliance: Our peer review policy aligns with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and best practices. We are members of COPE and follow their flowcharts for handling peer review issues.
Continuous Improvement: This policy is reviewed annually and updated based on feedback from authors, reviewers, editors, and evolving industry standards. Last comprehensive review: October 2023.
Contact Information: For questions about our peer review process:
Peer Review Coordinator: [email protected]
Editorial Office: [email protected]
Reviewer Applications: Researchers interested in joining our reviewer database can apply at https://www.biologymedjournal.com/become-reviewer