Peer Review Process
Insights in Biology and Medicine (IBM) operates a rigorous, ethical peer review to improve manuscripts and filter the scholarly record. Research content is assessed under a double-blind model unless stated otherwise below; other content types may receive editorial review or single-blind assessment as appropriate.
- Aims Quality · Rigor · Reproducibility · Transparency · Fairness
- Access Gold Open Access (CC BY 4.0)
- Integrity Conflicts, confidentiality, and misconduct handled under dedicated policies
1) Review Models by Article Type
| Article Type | Review Model | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Original Research, Clinical Trials, Systematic Reviews | Double-blind peer review | At least 2 independent expert reports |
| Short Communications / Methods / Technical Notes | Double-blind | Expedited timelines possible |
| Case Reports / Observational Studies | Double-blind | Consent and privacy scrutiny |
| Reviews / Mini-Reviews / Perspectives | Double-blind (or single-blind if disclosure needed) | Editor may request additional expert opinions |
| Editorials / Commentaries / Letters | Editorial assessment | External review at editor’s discretion |
| Special Issues | Same as corresponding article type | Guest Editors follow IBM standards; no guaranteed acceptance |
2) Review Workflow (Standard)
- Triage: Scope/quality check, ethics approvals, similarity screening, image integrity flagging.
- Reviewer Selection: Qualified, diverse, non-conflicted reviewers; invitations with due dates (14–21 days).
- Evaluation: Structured forms covering novelty, methods, statistics, data/code availability, ethics, and clarity.
- Decision: Editor synthesizes reports → Accept / Minor / Major / Reject with reasoned letter.
- Revision Cycle(s): Point-by-point response required; re-review for substantial changes.
- Final Checks: COI, data/code links, permissions, figure integrity, and ethics statements verified prior to acceptance.
3) Ethics, Integrity & Confidentiality
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer identities are confidential; files must not be shared externally.
- Conflicts of Interest: Editors and reviewers disclose financial and non-financial COIs and recuse where appropriate.
- Misconduct: Allegations (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, dual submission, coercive citation) trigger an investigation workflow and may lead to corrections or retractions.
- Human/Animal Research: Require approvals, consent, registration (where applicable), and privacy safeguards.
- AI Use: AI tools must not compromise confidentiality or replace human judgment; any AI assistance must be disclosed by authors per policy.
4) Timelines & Service Levels
| Stage | Target | Actions if Overdue |
|---|---|---|
| Initial triage | ≤ 7 days | Escalate to Section Editor lead |
| Reviewer acceptance of invite | ≤ 5 days | Send alternates on day 3 |
| Review completion | 14–21 days | Reminders day 7/14; replace by day 21 |
| First decision | ≤ 35 days | Notify EiC at day 40 |
| Minor revision window | ≤ 14 days | Editor-only verification |
| Major revision window | 21–45 days | Re-review by original/alternate reviewers |
5) Transparency Options
- Open identities (optional): Authors and reviewers may consent to unblinding after acceptance.
- Review recognition: With reviewer consent, IBM can acknowledge reviewers annually and support ORCID credit.
- Preprints: Submissions posted as preprints are welcome; peer review proceeds independently. Authors should link final DOI post-publication.
6) Special Cases
- Conflicted submissions: Assign to an uninvolved editor; exclude conflicted reviewers/editors.
- Sensitive/Dual-Use research: Additional oversight by EiC; potential redaction of harmful methodological detail.
- Appeals: Considered with evidence-based rationale by EiC or independent senior editor.
- Guest-edited issues: Editorial independence preserved; same standards as regular issues.
7) Reporting & Reproducibility Standards
Editors and reviewers ensure application of discipline-appropriate standards (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STARD) and require clear data/code availability with persistent identifiers (DOIs/accessions) where feasible.
8) Decision Outcomes
| Outcome | Criteria | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Scientific and ethical standards fully met | Verify data/code links and permissions |
| Minor revision | Limited clarifications; no new experiments essential | ≤ 14-day window |
| Major revision | Substantial issues in methods/interpretation | 21–45-day window; may require re-review |
| Reject | Out of scope, fatal flaws, insufficient advance | Provide constructive rationale |
9) Frequently Asked Questions
Is peer review double-blind for all research articles?
Yes, by default. Exceptions require justification and author consent (e.g., specialized formats).
Can I post my manuscript as a preprint?
Yes. Preprints are allowed; cite and link the final DOI after publication.
Are reviewers acknowledged?
With consent, reviewers may be acknowledged annually or receive ORCID review credit.
Plain-language note: We use double-blind expert review, aim for timely decisions, and uphold strict confidentiality and ethics. Constructive feedback is required; conflicts are managed transparently.