Peer review

Introduction

This policy outlines the procedures and criteria for reviewing scientific articles submitted to the Advanced Targets in Biomedicine journal. The policy aims to ensure the objective, fair and anonymous review process, and high standards of scientific publications.

The Editorial Board reviews all articles that meet the subject matter and requirements of the journal. The journal conducts a double-blind peer review of all manuscripts. Reviewers remain anonymous to the author, and the authors' identity is not disclosed to the reviewers. Violation of the anonymity principle is authorised only in cases of plagiarism or falsification.

At least two independent experts are selected by the editors amongst those having previous experience in the subject area. Most papers are reviewed by two reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited in case the two previous reviews contradict each other.

When choosing a reviewer, the editors are guided by the expertise of the reviewer and the absence of professional relationships between the author and the reviewer.

When submitting an article for reviewing, the author may indicate persons with whom there is or may be a conflict of interest caused by competition or cooperation. The editors will take this information into account. 

In their work, reviewers are guided by the principles formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Based on these principles the "Editorial Ethics" was developed.

Review deadlines are set by the editor-in-chief, who strives to minimize the time between the submission of a manuscript and a decision on it.

The review covers the following aspects:

• topicality of the article, its correspondence to the latest developments in the field;

• the relevance of the research methodology;

• the depth of the research analysis and the quality of the obtained results;

• accessibility of the article to the target audience in terms of language, style, layout etc.;

• other positive and negative features of the article that could be developed or corrected by the author;

• recommendation to publish or to decline publication.

• to accept the article;
• to accept after corrections;
• to resubmit for another review by different specialist;
• to reject the article.

Terms of reviewing

Review deadlines are set by the Editor-in-Chief, who aims to minimise the time between a manuscript submission and a final decision.

Responsibilities of reviewers:

• Reviewers must evaluate manuscript’s objectively and avoid conflicts of interest.

• They should also report any potential ethical violations, falsification of data or plagiarism.

• All reviews should be constructive and provide reasonable recommendations.

• They should also make necessary edits to manuscripts and submit them to the Editorial Board for reconsideration.

Article revision and publication decision

In case the reviewer recommends making changes to the article, his/her recommendations are sent to the author with a suggestion for revision. It is the author’s right to defend his/her position before the editorial board and the reviewers. A revised article is then re-submitted for another review.

In case the author refuses to revise the manuscript, he/she must notify the editorial board of their decision not to publish the article. If the author does not return the revised version within three months of the reviewer’s final decision, and does not reach back, the editorial board will stop the publication process. In such cases, the author will be sent a notification.

If the article is accepted, the board notifies the author and informs him/her about the planned time of publication. 

A positive review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.