Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Basic and Applied Research in Biomedicine relies on expert peer reviewers to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of published articles. Reviewers are expected to follow the principles outlined below.

1. Scope and Relevance

Reviewers should first assess whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the biomedical scope of the journal

  • Demonstrates clear relevance to basic, applied, or translational biomedicine

  • Contributes new knowledge or meaningful confirmation of existing knowledge

Manuscripts outside the journal scope should be flagged clearly.

2. Scientific Quality

Reviewers are asked to critically evaluate:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Appropriateness of study design

  • Adequacy and transparency of methods

  • Validity of statistical analyses

  • Logical consistency between results and conclusions

Constructive, evidence-based criticism is strongly encouraged.

3. Ethics and Compliance

Reviewers should verify that:

  • Ethical approval is clearly stated (human/animal studies)

  • Informed consent is mentioned where applicable

  • Research complies with international ethical standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki)

  • There are no obvious ethical concerns (data fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate publication)

Any serious ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief.

 

4. Presentation and Reporting

Reviewers should assess:

  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript

  • Quality of tables and figures

  • Consistency between abstract, methods, results, and discussion

  • Quality of English language and scientific expression

Suggestions for improving clarity and structure are welcome.

5. Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should:

  • Be professional, respectful, and objective

  • Focus on improving the manuscript

  • Clearly distinguish between major and minor issues

  • Avoid personal or derogatory language

6. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

  • Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest

  • If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review

7. Recommendation

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept in present form

  • Accept after minor revisions

  • Reconsider after major revisions

  • Reject

Recommendations should be clearly justified by the review comments.

8. Editorial Independence

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief, who considers reviewer recommendations alongside editorial priorities and journal policies.

You can find the Reviewer Form HERE