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 specialist reviewers of the concerned area. The dual review process is strictly followed and in certain controversial cases, the opinion of a 3rd reviewer can also be sought.
Manuscript Processing
Upon on-line submission of the manuscript, the author will be acknowledged with a MS number, via e-mail. Initially an article will be reviewed by the Editorial team to judge the academic quality, scientific rigor and format of the manuscript, in particular its relevance to the scope of the journal, compliance with instructions to authors check list and levels of similarity / accidental plagiarism.
Article submissions must consist of academic material that is unique and original, meaning that articles must engage cited material through critical thought. Articles must follow conventions of the English language in regard to proper grammar, punctuation, and typical writing practices. All factual statements must be supported by cited sources or research evidence. Authors must ensure the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables, and maps.
Articles written in poor English language with confusing or illogical statements, or not conforming to instructions to authors of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm will either be rejected or returned to the authors for reformatting. Manuscripts deemed proper only will be forwarded to at least two subject experts to work as anonymized reviewers in a time bound frame of 4 to 5 weeks, to provide their unbiased input on the overall quality of the reviewed manuscript as per standard international norms.
Acceptable manuscripts will be checked for data analysis and verification of references before the author is notified about the status of the paper with any suggestions for modifications strictly as reviewers comments and revisions asked. Editors will check at every step for full compliance and revision of all such articles in press. Finally accepted articles will then be forwarded for typesetting and formatting, and the galley proof will be sent to the authors for proof reading, before final publication in a time bound period. For detailed process of manuscript, please see the flow chart of MS processing in Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm.
Guidelines for Reviewers
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 4 to 5 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. Explicit language and clear expression of findings in the manuscript.
- Significance of objectives, questions or subjects studied, with a clear justification or rationale.
- Originality of work: It should be checked through standard plagiarism software only.
- Appropriateness of approach or methodology and adequacy of experimental techniques with citations, so that the work can be easily replicated.
- Appropriateness of clear images, figures and or tables and length of article, word count etc..
- Experimental data its lucid presentation and critical interpretation.
- Soundness of conclusion based on data, and interpretation and relevance of discussion of the manuscript.
- Appropriate literature citations as per Harvard Style of References with updated references.
- All sources must be cited in the reference list and in the main text. References with non-English titles must include a translation. All in-text citations must be cited in the reference list and all sources in the reference list must be cited within the article. Sources accessed online must include a DOI or URL.
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 honor every recommendation.
