Peer Review Policy

At Critical Reviews in Biotechnology and Life Sciences (CRBLS), we adhere to a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the quality and credibility of the research published in our journal. This Peer Review Policy ensures that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, impartially, and ethically by experts in the field.

1. Peer Review Process:

  • Double-Blind Review: CRBLS follows a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures that decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection are based solely on the quality and scientific merit of the manuscript, without bias or influence.

  • Selection of Reviewers: The editorial team selects qualified reviewers who have expertise in the relevant area of biotechnology and life sciences. Reviewers are typically selected based on their research background, academic experience, and familiarity with the subject matter of the manuscript.

  • Timeliness of Reviews: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 4-6 weeks. The journal aims to provide authors with feedback in a timely manner, and delays are minimized by maintaining clear communication with both authors and reviewers.

  • Review Process Steps:

    1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure it meets the journal’s submission guidelines and relevance to the field.
    2. Peer Review: Once cleared for review, the manuscript is sent to two or more independent peer reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, methodology, relevance, and clarity.
    3. Decision Making: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
      • Accept as is: The manuscript is suitable for publication without any revisions.
      • Minor revisions required: The manuscript can be published with minor revisions or clarifications.
      • Major revisions required: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
      • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers:

Reviewers are integral to the peer review process, and their responsibilities include:

  • Objectivity and Impartiality: Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, based on the scientific merit of the research. They should not be influenced by personal or professional relationships with the authors.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. The content of the manuscript should not be disclosed or shared with third parties without permission from the editorial team.

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive feedback to help authors improve the manuscript. Suggestions for improving the manuscript should be specific, actionable, and focused on enhancing the scientific value of the research.

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript. If there is any reason to believe a reviewer cannot objectively assess a manuscript, they should recuse themselves from the review process.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their reviews in the agreed-upon time frame. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

3. Responsibilities of Editors:

The editorial team at CRBLS ensures that the peer review process is carried out fairly and transparently. Editors are responsible for:

  • Fair and Transparent Decision Making: Editors must ensure that all manuscripts are reviewed based on their scientific merit, without any bias towards the authors. Decisions should be made impartially and with consideration of the reviewers’ feedback.

  • Confidentiality: Editors must maintain confidentiality throughout the review process, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Manuscripts and associated materials must not be shared with anyone outside the review process.

  • Handling Ethical Issues: Editors are responsible for investigating any allegations of ethical violations, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or research misconduct. The journal follows COPE guidelines for handling such issues and ensures that any ethical breaches are addressed promptly.

  • Final Decision: Based on the feedback from reviewers, editors make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to a manuscript. Authors are notified of the decision and given feedback from the reviewers.

4. Transparency and Communication:

  • Clear Communication with Authors: CRBLS ensures clear communication with authors regarding the status of their manuscript. Authors will receive detailed feedback from reviewers and a clear decision on the next steps in the publication process.

  • Transparency in the Review Process: The double-blind review process ensures that authors and reviewers are both anonymous, fostering fairness. In some cases, CRBLS may offer an open peer review option where the identities of the reviewers are disclosed to the authors after publication, if both parties agree.

5. Ethical Considerations:

  • Plagiarism and Duplicate Submission: All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection checks. Manuscripts with significant overlap with previously published work, or those that do not comply with the ethical standards of the journal, will be rejected.

  • Research Integrity: Authors must ensure that their research is conducted with the highest level of integrity. Any reports of data manipulation, falsification, or unethical research practices will be thoroughly investigated by the editorial team.

6. Post-Publication Review:

  • Revisions After Review: If revisions are required, authors are given an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript. Reviewers may be asked to reassess the revised version to ensure the necessary changes have been made.

  • Publication of Accepted Manuscripts: Once the manuscript is accepted, it will undergo further editorial checks for language and formatting before being published. The manuscript will be made available online, with all supplementary materials, figures, and tables.

7. Appeals Process:

In the case of a rejection or if an author disagrees with the reviewers’ feedback, they may appeal the decision. The appeal should be submitted in writing to the editorial office, outlining the reasons for the appeal. The editorial team will review the appeal and make a final decision based on the justification provided.