Reviewer Guidelines for JBBS
A Comprehensive Guide for Peer Reviewers Supporting Rigorous, Transparent, and Equitable Review in Biotechnology and Biomedical Science
Why Peer Review Matters
Peer review is the foundation of scientific quality control. As a JBBS reviewer, you play a critical role in ensuring that published research meets rigorous standards of methodological soundness, data integrity, ethical compliance, and transparent reporting. Your expert evaluation protects the scientific literature, accelerates innovation, and strengthens the credibility of biotechnology and biomedical science.
This comprehensive guide provides detailed expectations, evaluation criteria, ethical guidelines, and best practices to help every reviewer—whether new or experienced—deliver insightful, constructive, and timely feedback.
The typical JBBS review process follows a 14-day timeline from invitation to submission of your recommendation:
- Invitation & Availability (Day 0–2): Confirm your expertise, declare any conflicts of interest, and accept or decline the invitation promptly to allow editors to plan accordingly.
- Initial Orientation (Day 1–3): Download all manuscript files and supplementary materials. Review the abstract, figures, and methods section to identify any immediate scope or ethical concerns.
- Deep Evaluation (Day 3–12): Conduct a thorough assessment using the evaluation pillars and checklists provided below, annotating data quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and reproducibility.
- Draft Feedback (Day 10–13): Organize your notes into structured comments covering major issues, minor revisions, and confidential insights for the handling editor.
- Submit Recommendation (≤ Day 14): Upload your completed review with a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). Contact the editor if you need additional time.
- Familiarize yourself with JBBS priorities: Browse recent articles in the archives to understand editorial standards and identify opportunities for cross-referencing published work.
- Download all materials: Ensure you have access to the main manuscript, supplementary files, raw data, code repositories, and any appendices. Report missing or unreadable files to the editor.
- Check for conflicts of interest: Declare any collaborations, funding overlaps, institutional ties, or personal relationships that could bias your review. When in doubt, notify the editor immediately.
- Verify scope alignment: Confirm the manuscript fits the Aims & Scope of JBBS. If misaligned, suggest alternative venues.
- Structure your notes: Organize feedback into categories—study design, data integrity, interpretation, and presentation—with specific page numbers, paragraph references, or figure labels for precision.
Every manuscript review should address the following six pillars. Use these as a framework, expanding with discipline-specific criteria such as assay performance, computational reproducibility, biosafety protocols, translational readiness, or regulatory compliance.
1. Scientific Soundness
- Does the hypothesis address a clear research gap supported by existing literature?
- Is the study design robust with appropriate controls, sample sizes, and statistical power?
- Are methods described with sufficient clarity for replication or benchmarking?
- Do the results logically follow from the experimental design?
2. Data Quality & Integrity
- Are raw data, processed outputs, and statistical analyses internally consistent?
- Check for duplicated panels, unexpected splices, or identical noise patterns
- Do tables, figures, and supplementary materials align with results statements?
- Is the data availability statement adequate for reproducibility?
3. Ethical Compliance
- Are IRB approvals, informed consent, and animal welfare confirmations provided?
- Are conflicts of interest appropriately disclosed?
- Does the research respect participant anonymity, biosafety requirements, and dual-use concerns?
- For clinical trials: Is there prospective registration?
4. Clarity & Communication
- Is the scientific narrative cohesive and logically structured?
- Are technical terms defined consistently for a multidisciplinary audience?
- Do the title, abstract, and conclusions accurately reflect the data without overclaiming?
- Would language editing improve global accessibility?
5. Contribution & Impact
- Does the study advance the field through novel data, confirmatory findings, or methodological innovation?
- Are translational or practical implications discussed realistically?
- Is the work positioned within current biotechnology and biomedical science conversations?
- Does it provide actionable insights for researchers or practitioners?
6. Reproducibility & Transparency
- Are protocols, reagent sources, and software versions documented?
- Is analysis code accessible in repositories?
- Do authors include negative or null findings where relevant?
- Are recognized reporting standards followed (MIQE, ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)?
Use these detailed checkpoints when evaluating each manuscript component:
Title & Abstract
- Do keywords capture core techniques and domains (CRISPR, metabolomics, tissue engineering, etc.)?
- Are quantitative claims in the abstract supported in the results (effect sizes, p-values, confidence intervals)?
- Does the abstract balance context, objectives, methods, results, and significance within ~250 words?
Introduction
- Are recent references (within 3 years) cited to demonstrate current knowledge?
- Are research aims or hypotheses clearly stated in testable language?
- Does the introduction fairly represent prior work, including conflicting evidence?
Methods
- Are inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomization, and blinding procedures described?
- Are instrumentation, reagents, and software versions documented?
- Are ethics approvals, consent statements, and biosafety protocols clearly stated?
- Is sample size justification provided with power analysis where appropriate?
Results
- Do figures include complete legends, axis labels, and statistical annotations?
- Are negative or contradictory findings acknowledged?
- Is there appropriate balance between text description and visual presentation?
- Are data visualizations clear, accurate, and free from manipulation?
Discussion
- Are interpretations directly supported by the data without overreaching?
- Are study limitations, potential biases, and mitigation strategies discussed?
- Is the work contextualized within translational or practical applications?
- Are alternative explanations considered where appropriate?
Conclusions & References
- Do conclusions align with the scope and strength of the data?
- Are references accurate, properly formatted, and balanced between classic and recent sources?
- Are all claims in the manuscript supported by appropriate citations?
Effective reviews balance rigor with respect. Your feedback should help authors improve their work while protecting scientific integrity:
Best Practices for Review Comments:
- Start with strengths: Acknowledge innovative methods, comprehensive datasets, or robust validation
- Prioritize feedback: Address fundamental scientific/ethical issues first, then analytical refinements, then presentation
- Be specific: Cite line numbers, figure panels, or section headings for precise guidance
- Offer solutions: Recommend specific actions (additional controls, statistical consultation, claim refinement)
- Maintain objectivity: Evaluate the work, not the author—avoid assumptions about effort or intent
- Stay professional: Even in rejection, be respectful and constructive
Confidential Comments: Use the confidential section for sensitive issues (suspected misconduct, conflicts, or reviewer concerns) that require editorial mediation.
Choose the recommendation that best reflects the manuscript's current state and required revisions:
Accept
Reserved for manuscripts requiring only minor editorial corrections (grammar, formatting). The science is sound, complete, and publication-ready.
Minor Revision
The science is reliable, but improvements in clarity, figure presentation, or limited data additions would strengthen the manuscript. Changes can be completed quickly.
Major Revision
Significant issues require new experiments, deeper analysis, or substantial restructuring. Provide a detailed checklist of required changes for systematic author response.
Reject
Fundamental flaws, ethical concerns, or severe scope misalignment make the work unsuitable. Provide respectful reasoning and suggest alternative venues or improvements for future submission.
As a peer reviewer, you are entrusted with unpublished research. JBBS follows COPE guidance for reviewers to ensure ethical conduct:
Confidentiality Requirements:
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or students without explicit editorial approval
- Destroy copies after submitting your review (digital and printed)
- Flag misconduct: Report suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, or data fabrication with evidence
- Declare conflicts: Both actual and perceived conflicts must be disclosed immediately
- No competitive advantage: Never use unpublished findings to advance your own research
We Value Your Contribution: JBBS tracks review quality and timeliness to identify candidates for Editorial Board positions and Special Issue guest editorships. Recognition includes:
- Certificates of appreciation for academic dossiers and promotion portfolios
- APC discounts through membership or loyalty programs
- Public recognition in journal announcements for outstanding contributions
- ORCID/Publons integration for professional visibility (without breaching confidentiality)
Contact [email protected] with suggestions for improving reviewer support and resources.
Journal Policies
Join the JBBS Reviewer Community
Your expertise strengthens the quality and credibility of biotechnology and biomedical science research worldwide. Join our community of expert reviewers committed to rigorous, constructive peer review.
