Reviewer Resources
Essential Tools, Guidelines, and Support for JBBS Peer Reviewers
Supporting Excellence in Peer Review
As a peer reviewer for the Journal of Biotechnology and Biomedical Science (JBBS), you play a critical role in maintaining scientific quality and advancing research in biotechnology and biomedical science. This resource hub provides tools, guidelines, training materials, and best practices to support your review work.
Whether you're an experienced reviewer or new to the process, these resources will help you deliver constructive, thorough, and timely manuscript evaluations.
JBBS reviewers uphold rigorous standards while providing constructive feedback that strengthens research quality. These foundational principles guide all review activities:
- Impartial evaluation: Provide objective assessment without bias regarding author demographics, institutional affiliation, or career stage
- Timely completion: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 14-21 days) to support efficient publication
- Constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable suggestions that help authors improve their work
- Scope alignment: Recommend rejection for manuscripts clearly outside JBBS aims and scope
- Clear communication: Provide explicit reasoning for all recommendations, with line-specific references where applicable
- Language consideration: Evaluate scientific content primarily; note severe language issues but recommend editing services when content merits publication
- Thorough revision: Support multiple revision rounds when necessary to achieve publication quality
JBBS provides structured tools to facilitate efficient, comprehensive manuscript evaluation:
Manuscript Review Template
Structured template covering all key evaluation dimensions:
- Scientific merit and novelty
- Methodology rigor and reproducibility
- Results presentation and interpretation
- Discussion context and limitations
- Ethical compliance verification
- Figure/table quality assessment
Review Checklist
Quick reference for systematic manuscript evaluation:
- Title, abstract, and keyword relevance
- Introduction clarity and justification
- Methods completeness
- Results-conclusions alignment
- Reference accuracy and currency
- Supplementary material verification
Decision Recommendation Guide
Criteria for recommending appropriate editorial decisions:
- Accept: Minor editorial corrections only
- Minor Revision: Clarifications, small additions
- Major Revision: Significant methodological or analytical changes
- Reject: Fundamental flaws or scope mismatch
Confidential Comments Template
Guidance for editor-only feedback addressing:
- Suspected ethical violations
- Potential conflicts of interest
- Concerns about data integrity
- Reviewer expertise limitations
- Publication priority recommendations
JBBS reviewers adhere to COPE ethical guidelines ensuring integrity, confidentiality, and fairness throughout the review process:
Core Ethical Obligations:
- Unbiased evaluation: Judge manuscripts solely on scientific merit without regard to author race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation
- Timely review: Complete reviews with reasonable speed and attention. Decline invitations promptly if unable to meet deadlines
- Confidentiality: Do not disclose manuscript content to anyone except when seeking expert consultation (with editor approval). Destroy manuscripts after review completion
- Respect intellectual property: Never use unpublished information from reviewed manuscripts in your own research without explicit author consent
- Declare conflicts: Immediately notify editors of any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (collaborations, competitions, personal relationships, financial interests)
- No competitive advantage: Recuse yourself if reviewing the manuscript could provide unfair advantage to your own research program
- Flag misconduct: Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ethical violations to the editor
- Respect author autonomy: Provide scientific guidance without imposing personal preferences or demanding unnecessary citations to your own work
- Invitation (Day 0): Receive review invitation via email with manuscript details and abstract
- Response (Within 48 hours): Accept or decline invitation. If declining, suggest alternative reviewers when possible
- Access (Day 1-2): Download full manuscript and supplementary materials from ManuscriptZone portal
- Review (Days 3-14): Conduct thorough evaluation using review templates and checklists
- Submission (Day 14-21): Submit completed review with recommendation via ManuscriptZone
- Follow-up (If applicable): Review revised manuscript if invited for re-evaluation
JBBS supports reviewer development through curated resources and training opportunities:
External Training Resources
- Publons Academy - Free peer review training courses and certification
- COPE Resources - Ethical guidelines, case studies, and flowcharts for complex scenarios
- Elsevier Reviewer Resources - Comprehensive peer review tutorials and best practices
- Springer Nature Peer Review Tutorials - Interactive modules on review fundamentals
- AJE Peer Review Guide - Step-by-step review process explanation
JBBS values your contribution to scientific quality. Reviewers receive recognition and benefits including:
- Annual certificates: Official acknowledgment for review contributions suitable for CVs and promotion portfolios
- ORCID integration: Verified review activity linked to your ORCID profile (via Publons/Web of Science)
- APC discounts: Preferential article processing charges through reviewer loyalty programs and membership benefits
- Editorial board consideration: Outstanding reviewers invited to join JBBS Editorial Board
- Guest editor opportunities: Invitations to organize Special Issues in areas of expertise
- Public recognition: Acknowledgment in annual journal reports and social media highlights (with permission)
- Priority access: Early access to journal content and invitation-only webinars
Q: How long should my review be?
A: Reviews typically range from 500-1,500 words. Focus on depth and specificity rather than length. Provide detailed feedback on major issues and prioritize comments.
Q: Can I share a manuscript with colleagues for consultation?
A: Only with explicit editor approval. If you need expert input beyond your expertise, contact the editor to request permission or suggest additional reviewers.
Q: What if I discover I have a conflict of interest after accepting?
A: Notify the editor immediately and recuse yourself from the review. Conflicts include recent collaborations, competitive research, personal relationships, or financial interests.
Q: Should I recommend citations to my own work?
A: Only if genuinely relevant and essential to the manuscript. Never demand unnecessary self-citations. Disclose the recommendation in confidential comments to the editor.
Q: How do I handle suspected plagiarism or misconduct?
A: Document specific concerns with evidence (text matches, manipulated images, data inconsistencies) in confidential comments. Do not contact authors directly. The editor will investigate.
Q: Can I use AI tools to assist with reviews?
A: Exercise caution. AI can help with grammar/clarity checks, but the scientific evaluation must be entirely your own. Never upload manuscripts to public AI systems. Maintain confidentiality.
Join the JBBS Reviewer Community
Your expertise strengthens biotechnology and biomedical science research worldwide. Register as a reviewer to contribute to rigorous, constructive peer review.
