An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Don’t cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and don’t use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. Adopt a positive, impartial attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective and constructive scientific communication.
If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return it immediately to the editor. Reviews must be completed within 3 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, immediately return the manuscript to the editor.
In your review, consider the following aspects of the manuscript: –
Adherence to style of the MS as set forth in Instructions to Authors of Biosc Biotech Res Comm.
- Adequacy of title, abstract and its contents. Language and expression of findings in the manuscript.
- Significance of research questions or subject studied.
- Originality of work: It should be checked through plagiarism software.
- Appropriateness of approach or methodology and adequacy of experimental techniques.
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation and relevance of discussion of the ms. Appropriateness of figures and tables and length of article.
- Appropriate literature citations strictly as per Harvard Style of References with updated references.
Any help you can give in clarifying meaning in the manuscript will be appreciated. We prefer reviewers to use the manuscript comment review system, enabling the authors to make the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers, which can be later checked for compliance.
If you wish to mark the text of the manuscript, use a pencil or make a photocopy, mark it, and return it together with the original. You can be particularly helpful in pointing out unnecessary illustrations and data that are presented in both tabular (and graphic) form and in detail in the text. Such redundancies are a waste of space and readers time.
A significant number of authors have not learnt how to organize data and will be benefit from your guidance. Do not discuss the paper with its authors. In your comments intended for transmission to the author, do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper. Suggested revision should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Present criticism dispassionately and avoid offensive remarks.
Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific numbered comments which if appropriate may be subdivided into major and minor points. Confidential remarks directed to the editor should be typed (or handwritten) on a separate sheet, not on the review form. You might want to distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
Your criticisms, arguments and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of work. Substantiate your statements.
Reviewer’s recommendations are gratefully received by the editor. However, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honour every recommendation.
Categories of recommendation of a Manuscript by reviewers
Accept or reject, modify/revise, or convert to some other form.
Very few papers qualify for acceptance upon original submission for publication except for minor style changes.
Keep a copy of the review in your files. The manuscript may be returned to you for a second review. You might require this copy to evaluate the author’s responses to your criticisms.
All authors who submit their manuscripts to Bioscience Biotechnology Reserach Communications will have to make the recommended changes by the reviewers, failing which their MS will not be processed further, and will be put on hold or treated as new submission. Such authors will be censured as our sole intention is to provide healthy constructive criticisms for improving the quality of the manuscript.
Peer Review Process
- Manuscript Processing
Upon initial submission of the manuscript, the author will be acknowledged of the receipt via e-mail. Initially an article will be reviewed by one member of the Editorial team to judge the quality of the paper. Articles written in poor English language or not conforming to Biosc.Biotech.Res.Com guidelines will either be rejected or returned to the authors to rectify the shortcomings. Manuscripts deemed proper should be forwarded to at least two subject experts to provide their unbiased input. Acceptable manuscripts will be checked for data analysis and verification of references before the author will be notified about the status of the paper with any suggestions for modifications. Finally accepted articles should be forwarded to the printer for typeset and formatting, etc. and the proof will send to the authors for proof reading, before publication.
2. Peer Review Policy
Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff, and is, therefore, an important extension of the scientific process. Each article submitted to Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm for publication is reviewed by at least two senior experts of the concerned specialty. The dual external review process is strictly followed and, in certain controversial cases, the opinion of a 3rd reviewer can also be sought.
3. Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest exists when as author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influences (bias) his or her actions (such relationship are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). However, conflicts can also occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and the government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research. When authors submit a manuscript, they are required to disclose all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist.
It is the discretion of editorial committee of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm to resolve any conflict of interest between the author(s) and reviewers. Editors may choose not to consider an article for publication if they feel that the research is biased by the sponsors funding the research project.
Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and representing them as one’s own original work. Within the academia, it is considered dishonesty or fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. Plagiarism can be unintentional or intentional, reproducing academic material without appropriate credit to the original authors. Similarly self -plagiarism is the re-use of significant, identical or near identical portions of one’s own work without citing the original work. This is also known as ‘Recycling fraud. Worst form of plagiarism is to steal the whole article from some journal and publish it under one’s own name in another journal. The Editorial Committee of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Com will blacklist any author found to be guilty of plagiarism. The name of author(s) committing plagiarism will also be disseminated to editors of other medical journals.
5. Ethical Issues
Human clinical trials and studies conducted in animals (or not) must have been approved by an Institutional Review Committee (IRC). In the absence of such a formal ethics review committee, the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and/or the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, as adopted and promulgated by the United States National Institutes of Health or ICMR India must be followed. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. In case of any study involving clinical trial, taking of informed consent of patients is mandatory
6. Editorial Committee
The Editorial committee consisting of the Editor- in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editors, Assistant Editor(s) and the editorial secretaries meet at least twice a month to expedite the business of the journal. The editorial committee follows the guidelines provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication which can be downloaded from http://www.icmje.org/
7. Advisory Board
An advisory board comprising of members with significant professional experience in different fields of biotechnological and biomedical sciences helps the Editorial Committee in policy matters when needed. Senior specialists from India as well as professionals from foreign countries are members of the Board.
8. Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
9. The Journal cover
For a copy of the full resolution journal cover of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm please click here