Peer Review Process

Reviewers provide recommendations and supporting comments, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the designated editor. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be declined during initial screening without external review. Submission and participation in peer review do not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, fair, and timely evaluations. Their assessments should focus on the scholarly quality of the manuscript and be supported by clear reasoning and relevant evidence.

• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications.
• Respect intellectual property rights and do not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
• Disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline or withdraw from an assignment when impartiality may be compromised.
• Do not disclose manuscript content to unauthorized parties.
• Do not upload confidential manuscripts or review materials to external artificial intelligence services without editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.
• Notify the editor of suspected ethical concerns or substantial issues affecting the integrity of the manuscript.

Authors receiving a revision request should submit a revised manuscript through OJS and provide a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

The response should explain how each comment has been addressed. Where an author disagrees with a recommendation, the response should provide a clear academic justification. Changes to the manuscript should be identifiable to facilitate reassessment.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions and the remaining issues. Further revision may be requested when necessary to meet the journal's standards.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the time required for assessment, and the number of revision rounds.

Authors receive editorial updates and decision notifications through the OJS platform. The journal aims to manage submissions efficiently while allowing sufficient time for careful and independent review.

BMB does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period. Authors are encouraged to monitor their submission status through OJS and respond to editorial requests within the specified timeframe.

Editors are responsible for ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence throughout the review process. Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, reviewer evaluations, the journal's standards, and relevant ethical requirements.

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, manipulated peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other publication ethics concerns will be assessed in accordance with BMB's Publication Ethics and relevant research integrity policies.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal regarding an editorial decision through the journal's official communication channel. Appeals should identify the decision being challenged and provide documented evidence or a clear academic justification.

Appeals will be assessed according to the journal's editorial procedures. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.