1. Purpose of Peer Review
BioCenra uses a structured peer review process to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
The peer review process supports the journal’s commitment to publishing reliable and meaningful research across molecular and cellular sciences, biomedical research, biotechnology, bioinformatics, and related interdisciplinary fields.
Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and provides authors with constructive feedback to improve the clarity, accuracy, and scientific contribution of their work.
2. Peer Review Model
BioCenra follows a single-anonymized peer review model, unless a different review procedure is explicitly stated for a particular article type.
Under this model:
• Reviewers are provided with the authors’ identities.
• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the standard review process.
• Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and provide impartial, constructive feedback.
• Editorial decisions are made by the designated editor based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, and relevant editorial considerations.
3. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.
The editorial team evaluates the submission for:
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
• Scientific significance and potential contribution.
• Manuscript completeness and compliance with author guidelines.
• Originality and potential duplication or plagiarism concerns.
• Ethical requirements and relevant declarations.
• Appropriate research methodology and reporting.
• Conflicts of interest and authorship information.
Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, or unsuitable for further consideration may be declined without external peer review.
Passing initial screening does not guarantee peer review or publication.
4. Selection of Peer Reviewers
BioCenra seeks to identify qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the scientific and methodological aspects of each manuscript.
Reviewer selection may consider:
1. Subject-specific research expertise.
2. Relevant academic or professional experience.
3. Methodological and statistical knowledge, where applicable.
4. Independence from the authors and their institutions.
5. Availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
6. Potential conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are requested to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
The number of reviewers may vary according to manuscript type, scientific complexity, and editorial requirements. The journal should establish an internal minimum review standard appropriate to each article category.
5. External Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass initial editorial assessment may be sent to independent external reviewers for detailed scientific evaluation.
Reviewers are invited to assess the following areas:
A. Scientific quality and methodology
• Clarity of research objectives and hypotheses.
• Appropriateness of the study design.
• Validity of experimental, clinical, computational, or analytical methods.
• Reproducibility and transparency of the research, where applicable.
• Appropriateness of statistical analyses.
• Consistency between the reported findings and conclusions.
B. Originality and scientific contribution
• Novelty and significance of the research.
• Contribution to molecular, biomedical, biotechnological, or informatics research.
• Relevance to the journal’s interdisciplinary readership.
• Appropriate engagement with existing scientific literature.
C. Manuscript presentation
• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Quality and accuracy of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
• Adequacy of references.
• Compliance with relevant reporting standards.
• Clarity of limitations and interpretation.
Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments to assist the authors and editorial team.
6. Editorial Decision Categories
Following the peer review process, the handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports and manuscript before issuing an editorial decision.
Accept: Acceptance
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.
Minor revision: Minor Revision
Limited corrections or amendments are required before the manuscript can proceed toward publication.
Major revision: Major Revision
Substantial changes may be required to address scientific, methodological, analytical, or presentation-related concerns. The revised manuscript may be sent for further review.
Reject: Rejection
The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication based on scientific quality, ethical concerns, scope, methodological limitations, or other editorial considerations.
Reviewer recommendations are considered by the handling editor but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The editor retains responsibility for determining whether a manuscript is appropriate for publication.
7. Revision and Resubmission
Authors requested to revise their manuscripts should submit the revised version within the timeframe communicated by the editorial office.
Revised submissions should include, where requested:
• A revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments.
• A detailed response to each reviewer comment.
• A clear explanation of changes made.
• Justification for any recommendations that were not adopted.
• Additional data, analyses, or supporting documentation when reasonably required.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
Revision does not guarantee acceptance.
8. Reviewer Confidentiality and Responsibilities
BioCenra expects reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and associated materials.
Reviewers must:
• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Avoid sharing manuscript content or unpublished findings without authorization.
• Not use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.
• Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback.
• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or communicate any delay.
• Avoid discriminatory, offensive, or personal comments.
Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content to external AI systems unless the journal has authorized the practice and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place. Reviewers should follow BioCenra’s responsible AI and confidentiality policies.
These principles reflect established guidance on reviewer confidentiality and responsible peer review.
9. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers are required to disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality.
Potential conflicts may include:
• Personal or professional relationships with authors.
• Recent collaborations or shared institutional affiliations.
• Financial interests related to the research.
• Direct academic competition.
• Other circumstances that could influence independent assessment.
Individuals with a relevant conflict may be excluded from the review or decision-making process.
Authors are also expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal’s publication policies.
10. Ethical and Research Integrity Assessment
BioCenra is committed to maintaining ethical and scientific standards throughout the editorial and peer review process.
Depending on the manuscript type, the editorial team may request:
• Institutional ethics committee or review board approval.
• Informed consent documentation, where applicable.
• Animal research ethics approval.
• Clinical trial registration details, where applicable.
• Data availability and supporting research documentation.
• Clarification of authorship, funding, and conflicts of interest.
• Additional information concerning potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or research misconduct.
If ethical or research integrity concerns arise, the editorial team may pause the review or publication process while appropriate clarification or investigation is conducted.
11. Editorial Independence and Publication Fees
BioCenra’s editorial decisions should be based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and suitability of submitted manuscripts.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by publication fees, commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressure, or the authors’ nationality or professional standing.
Payment of an article processing charge or publication fee does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or favorable peer review.
The journal retains editorial responsibility for its publication decisions. This principle is consistent with
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantive error, significant misunderstanding, or procedural issue may have affected the decision.
Appeals should include:
1. Manuscript identification details.
2. A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
3. Specific factual or procedural concerns.
4. Supporting information, where available.
Appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor. Where feasible, an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision may assess the appeal.
The journal may request an additional independent assessment when appropriate. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
13. Post-Publication Review and Corrections
Peer review is an important part of quality assurance but does not eliminate the possibility of errors or concerns arising after publication.
BioCenra welcomes responsible communication from readers, authors, and researchers regarding published articles.
When necessary, the journal may assess reported concerns and take appropriate action, including:
• Publication of a correction.
• Publication of a clarification or editorial note.
• Further investigation of research integrity concerns.
• Retraction or other appropriate post-publication action when supported by the evidence and applicable policies.
Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or supporting information concerning their published research.
14. Peer Review Timelines
BioCenra aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.
Review timelines may vary depending on:
• Availability of qualified reviewers.
• Manuscript complexity and subject area.
• Reviewer response times.
• Number and extent of revisions.
• Ethical and editorial assessment requirements.
The editorial office will communicate relevant delays or additional requirements to authors where appropriate.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed publication date based solely on submission or payment of publication fees.
15. Reviewer Recognition
BioCenra recognizes the contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing.
The journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions through appropriate recognition mechanisms, subject to reviewer consent, confidentiality requirements, and applicable journal policies.
Reviewer identities will not be publicly disclosed unless the review model and applicable permissions allow such disclosure.
16. Commitment to Research Quality and Transparency
BioCenra, published by OAOriginals, is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer review process.
The journal seeks to ensure that manuscripts are assessed by appropriately qualified reviewers and that editorial decisions are guided by scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
BioCenra may periodically review and update its peer review procedures to reflect developments in research ethics, scholarly communication, and best practices in academic publishing.