Editorial Process and Peer Review Policies

Editorial Process and Peer Review Policies

Peer review is a crucial and compulsory process in scientific and academic publishing. The peer review process assesses the quality of the submitted manuscript and provides an objective and unbiased feedback platform in ensuring that any published article is scientifically sound and accurate for the benefit of a greater audience.

As you would see in the guide for authors, all manuscripts submitted to Life Sciences, Medicine and Biomedicine will go through a systematic, single-blinded peer review process by expert reviewers in the same field of studies as the author and the scope of the submitted manuscript. All peer review reports provided to authors are anonymous. The identity of the reviewers are never revealed.

The Editorial Process:

 

1. The process starts when the author(s) usually the corresponding author submits the manuscript using the journal's Online Journal System. During the submission process, the corresponding author will be required to confirm a number of submission compliance including consent for the open access policies, institutional ethics approval for studies involving animals or human subjects, disclosure of any conflicts of interests and authors' commitment towards publication ethics and policies. Upon successful submission, the author (s) will receive an Article Submission confirmation through their registered email. This will be recorded as the date of submission.

 

2. The Assistant Editor at the Editorial Office will conduct the initial checks on the submitted manuscript for compliance to formatting requirements, styles, inclusions of figures and tables, institutional ethics approval for studies involving animals and/or human subjects, references among others are included. During this time, the Editorial Office may request for additional information if needed (ie: supporting files, uncropped images, supporting documents, approval to use copyright images). Starting 1 July 2021, all manuscripts will be processed using Crossref Similarity Check provided by iThenticate. Authors will be able to access this report in their online submission dashboard.

 

3. Once initial checks are complete, the article will be assigned to an Editor or a Section Editor who will assess the suitability of the manuscript to the scope of the journal, and who will after which continue to facilitate the peer review process. 

 

4. The Editor proceeds to select impartial reviewers based on their expertise that match the scope of the manuscript and will extend the invitation to conduct the peer review. During this stage, the reviewers are required to commit to the set deadlines, raise any other concerns, as well as declare if there are any competing interest with the assigned tasks, the manuscripts and/or the authors. Beginning 2020, the journal gave the option for authors to suggest peer reviewers, however, the final decision on selecting reviewers are with the Editors.

 

5. The Editor communicates with the reviewers to ensure timely submission of the peer review report. In general, reviewers are provided  1 week to respond to either accept or decline the peer review invitation. A minimum of three (3) or more reviewers, are invited. For a decision to be made, all articles must be reviewed by at least two (2) independent reviewers.  

 

6. Once the invitation is accepted, the reviewer normally has 2 weeks to complete and submit the peer review report online. Upon request, a time extension to submit the peer review report may be provided. In addition to the review report, the reviewer is also required to suggest a peer review decision on the manuscript. All recommended decisions will need to be justified. The author(s) can monitor the current stage of the manuscript online by logging into the Online Journal System using their username and password.

 

7. Once the Editor receives a minimum of two (2) reports from two (2) independent reviewers, the Editor summarizes the findings and records a decision based on the recommendations of the Editor-in-Chief or Senior Editors. This decision will then be conveyed to the author(s).

 

8. At this stage, the author(s) will know if their paper is accepted, require revisions or rejected.  In the peer review report, justifications will be provided to the author(s). The following are the types of decisions:

 

Accept Submission

The manuscript is accepted for publication.

 

Revisions Required

The manuscript will need to be revised and resubmitted based on the comments and suggestions of the reviewers and editors. The revised manuscript will need to be accompanied with a document detailing the authors' responses to all the reviewers and with details on all the specific revisions made. Resubmission alone does not guarantee acceptance, but will depend on the authors fulfilling all the raised concerns by the reviewers, or providing valid justifications. Normally authors are given 1-2 months for resubmission, with extensions provided upon request.

 

Resubmit for Review

This decision will be made in an event where extensive revisions are needed, including situations where additional data may be required to support the study. An appropriate period of time may be given to the authors to provide their response for the second round of review. As much as possible, the same reviewers will be engaged to complete the peer review process before a decision can be made for the second review. Similarly, the revised manuscript need to be accompanied with an accompanying document detailing the authors' responses to the reviewers and with details on all the revisions made. Resubmission alone does not guarantee acceptance, but will depend on the authors fulfilling all the raised concerns by the reviewers, or providing valid justifications.

 

Reject 

The decision to reject, in most circumstances is made on manuscripts with poor study designs and unreliable scientific procedures, flawed methodologies, invalid statistical and data analysis. Unethical practices such as plagiarism will still be flagged at the review stage and will cause the manuscript to be rejected immediately.  

 

Decline Submission

The manuscript may be declined for submission even before the peer review process where extensive improvements are needed, failure to comply to the formatting style and author's guide of the journal, including invalid or absence of institutional ethical clearance for studies involving animals or human subjects.

 

9. The Editor will suggest a deadline for the authors to submit the revised manuscript before a final decision can be made to accept or to reject the manuscript for publication. The review process ends here.

 

10. Upon acceptance, the manuscript is then transferred to the copyediting and publishing team to prepare the manuscript for eventual online publication. The Editors and the Editorial Office will be working closely with the corresponding author who will function as the main channel between all authors and the Editorial Office of the Journal. All authors are included in all email communications. 

 

Peer Review Policies

 

1. Life Sciences, Medicine and Biomedicine conforms, and adapt valuable resources from the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The journal's official listing on ICMJE can be found here: LSMB-ICMJE

 

2. All authors, editors and reviewers must comply to these recommendations. Please read the ICMJE recommendations here: ICMJE Recommendations

 

3. All manuscripts that pass through the intitial checks will go through a systematic, single-blinded peer review.

 

4. Reviewers are anonymous to the authors and review reports are submitted to the authors anonymously.

 

5. Once suitability of the manuscript is confirmed, all manuscripts must be reviewed by at least two (2) independent reviewers. A minimum of three (3) or more reviewers are invited. 

 

6. If a second or more rounds of reviews are needed, the same reviewers will be approached based on their availability.

 

7. The journal's policy restricts the handling Editor from reviewing the manuscript. However, other Editors can be invited to review.  

 

8. While the Editorial Office closely follows-up with the Editors, and strives to complete the peer review process on a timely manner, a fixed timeframe for the review process to be completed is not possible to be estimated or stated.

 

9. A decision to accept the manuscript for publication can only be made by the Editor once a minimum of two (2)  independent reviewers agree to accept the manuscript. 

 

10. The Editor's decision is final.