Editorial Process

Advances in BioScience is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a transparent, rigorous, and ethically grounded editorial process that ensures the integrity and quality of all published research.

Peer Review Process

The journal employs a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure high standards of academic quality and integrity.

Initial Screening

Following submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial office to ensure compliance with submission guidelines, ethical requirements, and journal scope. Plagiarism and similarity checks are conducted at this stage. Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently original, of poor scientific quality, or contain poor grammar or English language may be desk-rejected. Authors are usually notified of desk decisions within 7 calendar days of receipt.

Anonymity and Reviewer Selection

In the single-blind model, reviewers remain anonymous to authors, but reviewers are aware of author names and affiliations. Manuscripts that pass initial checks are assigned to a handling editor and typically reviewed by two or more independent experts with recognized expertise. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, experience, prior review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Expert Evaluation

Reviewers assess originality, methodology, data quality, significance of findings, and adherence to ethical and scientific standards. Their reports include specific comments and constructive recommendations to guide the editorial decision.

Editorial Submissions

When an Editor or Editorial Board member submits a manuscript, they are fully recused from all editorial handling and peer-review processes related to that submission. The manuscript is assigned to an independent Editor or an external Guest Editor with no conflicts of interest. Such submissions undergo the same rigorous peer-review process as all other manuscripts. The submitting editor is denied access to reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial discussions within the manuscript management system.

Special Issues

Guest Editors of Special Issues oversee the peer-review process but are not authorized to make final acceptance decisions. All Special Issue manuscripts undergo the same rigorous peer-review process as regular submissions, and final decisions are made or formally approved by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent Editorial Board member. Guest Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest with special issue contributors.

Editorial Oversight

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and makes a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief reviews this recommendation and makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Manuscript Decision Categories

Based on reviewer reports, decisions typically fall into one of the following:

  • Accept: Suitable for publication without further changes.
  • Accept with minor revisions: Requires limited changes; the revised manuscript will be assessed by the handling editor (and returned to reviewers at their discretion) before final acceptance.
  • Major revisions required: Requires substantial changes to resolve significant methodological, analytical, or interpretive issues identified by reviewers.
  • Reject: Does not meet the journal’s standards of originality, quality, or scope.
  • Reject with Invitation to Resubmit: Issued when a manuscript requires substantial structural or methodological changes beyond a standard revision. Authors may submit a significantly revised version as a new manuscript, subject to fresh editorial review and peer assessment.

Revision and Re-review Process

When a manuscript is returned to the authors for Minor or Major Revisions, authors must submit their resubmission within the timeframes specified in the Review Timeline section of this policy. The resubmission must include:

  • A revised version of the manuscript with changes clearly highlighted.
  • A detailed, point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, explaining how the concerns have been addressed or providing a scientific rebuttal where changes were not made.

For minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be assessed by the handling editor, who may return it to reviewers at their discretion if further expert evaluation is deemed necessary.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript is typically returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation to ensure that substantive concerns have been satisfactorily resolved. If an original reviewer is unavailable, the handling editor may assign a new reviewer with appropriate expertise.

A "Major Revision" decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance; the resubmission will undergo a full second round of evaluation.

Failure to adequately address reviewer comments or provide a compelling rebuttal may result in further revision requests or rejection. Authors who believe a rejection was made in error may initiate a formal appeal via the Appeals Process. Extension requests should be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the deadline whenever possible and are granted at the handling editor's discretion. Late extension requests may be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Appeals Process

Authors who believe a rejection decision was made in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 calendar days of the decision, including a detailed rebuttal, in accordance with the journal’s Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Review Timeline

  • Desk/Initial screening: Typically within 7 calendar days.
  • First full editorial decision (after peer review): Typically within 4–6 weeks of initial submission.
  • Minor revision resubmission: Recommended within 14 calendar days of decision.
  • Major revision resubmission: Recommended within 60 calendar days of decision (extensions may be granted upon request).

Peer Review Transparency

To maintain an unbiased evaluative environment, the journal employs a single-blind peer-review model in which reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors throughout the review process and following publication. Review reports are not published alongside articles, and the journal does not offer open peer-review histories at this time.

Editorial decisions are based on rigorous academic and ethical criteria, including the scientific merit of the manuscript, independent reviewer evaluations, adherence to journal scope, and the handling editor's professional judgment.

Reviewer anonymity is strictly maintained. The journal does not disclose reviewer identities to authors or third parties without the reviewer's explicit consent, except where disclosure is required for legal or ethical investigations.

The journal welcomes post-publication comments, corrections, or concerns regarding published articles. These should be submitted to the editorial office for evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the journal’s policies on corrections, retractions, and research integrity.

Production process

Upon acceptance, accepted manuscripts are copyedited and typeset with care to ensure conformity with the journal’s formatting and style standards.

  • Copyediting: A copyeditor thoroughly reviews your manuscript for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal's style guide.
  • Typesetting: Your accepted manuscript is formatted according to the journal's layout specifications for professional presentation.
  • Proofs: Following copyediting and typesetting, the corresponding author will receive the final PDF proof within 8–12 calendar days of acceptance and should return corrections within 5 calendar days to facilitate timely publication. At this stage, only minor typographical or factual corrections are permitted to preserve the integrity of the peer-reviewed record.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use content prior to publication.

Reviewers must not input manuscript content—in part or in whole—into generative AI platforms to draft, compose, or generate substantive content for review reports. Peer review requires expert judgment, critical analysis, and contextual understanding that AI systems cannot provide. All evaluations must represent the reviewer's own expert professional judgment to ensure the confidentiality, authenticity, and integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewers may use AI tools for minor grammar or language editing of their own written review text, provided no manuscript content is shared with the AI system and the final conclusions remain the reviewer’s original work. Reviewers' own text refers to original comments and evaluations written by the reviewer, not paraphrased or summarized manuscript content.

The unauthorized inputting of the manuscript content into AI systems constitutes a serious breach of peer-review ethics. Such actions may result in immediate removal from the reviewer database and notification to the reviewer’s institution, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscript Withdrawal (Pre-Publication)

Manuscript Withdrawal refers to the formal removal of a submitted manuscript from the editorial or publication process prior to its official publication. Withdrawal is a pre-publication procedure that permanently removes the manuscript from consideration for publication in the journal.

Withdrawal applies exclusively to unpublished manuscripts. Once a manuscript is officially published, it cannot be withdrawn. A manuscript is considered published once the Version of Record (VoR)—the final, definitive, and citable version—is publicly available online through the publisher's platform. Publication may occur through one of these publisher-controlled events:

  • Public release of the VoR (e.g., Online First, Early View, Ahead-of-Print)
  • Public availability of the VoR with an assigned Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
  • Inclusion in a formal journal issue (electronic or print)

Once any condition of publication is met, the manuscript becomes a permanent part of the scientific record. Any subsequent removal or modification will be managed through the Retraction or Correction policies to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of the scholarly archive.

Withdrawal Request Procedures

Authors wishing to withdraw a manuscript must submit a formal written request to the Editorial Office at: editor@sospublication.co.in

All withdrawal requests must be submitted by the corresponding author and must include explicit written consent from all listed co-authors. This consent must be provided via a single Withdrawal Request Form signed by all authors or through individual verified emails sent to the Editorial Office. The request must include:

  • Manuscript title and identification number
  • Names of all authors
  • Clear statement requesting withdrawal
  • Detailed explanation of the reason(s) for withdrawal
  • Supporting documentation (when applicable)

The journal reserves the right to request individual confirmation from co-authors to prevent unauthorized or disputed withdrawals. Withdrawal requests lacking full author consent will not be processed.

Processing Timeline

  • Acknowledgment: Normally within 5 business days of receipt
  • Pre-Acceptance Decision: Normally within 10 business days
  • Post-Acceptance Decision: Normally within 15 business days
  • Record Update: Removal from submission system within 3 business days after approval

Processing times may be extended in cases involving ethical review, authorship disputes, or institutional consultation.

A manuscript is considered formally withdrawn only upon receipt of written confirmation from the Editorial Office. Until this confirmation is issued, the manuscript remains under active editorial consideration. Authors are strictly prohibited from submitting the work to another journal during this period. Unauthorized submission elsewhere prior to formal confirmation constitutes a duplicate submission and a breach of publication ethics, which may result in sanctions as per the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy.

Stages of Withdrawal

Pre-Acceptance

Authors may request withdrawal at any time before formal editorial acceptance. Pre-acceptance withdrawal requests are reviewed by the handling Editor and are normally processed in accordance with the timelines specified above, unless concerns arise regarding research integrity or ethical violations that necessitate further investigation.

Post-Acceptance

Withdrawal of a manuscript after formal acceptance but prior to publication is strongly discouraged. At this stage, significant editorial and production resources have already been invested, including time contributed by peer reviewers, editors, and production staff. Such requests will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances, specifically those constituting valid scientific or ethical grounds as defined in the “Permissible Grounds for Withdrawal” section of this policy. Requests must include a compelling, documented justification that could not reasonably have been identified prior to acceptance.

The journal supports authors who proactively identify and report honest scientific errors post-acceptance and will facilitate withdrawal or correction in these cases without punitive sanctions.

In exceptional cases where post-acceptance withdrawal is approved, the journal reserves the right to recover reasonable administrative or production costs incurred during editorial processing, copyediting, typesetting, or other preparatory work. Authors will be informed of any applicable costs prior to final approval of the withdrawal.

Post-acceptance requests require approval from the Editor-in-Chief. Complex cases may be escalated to the Editorial Board for collective decision. Ethics-related cases may be referred to relevant institutional or regulatory authorities where appropriate.

Permissible Grounds for Withdrawal

Withdrawal requests will be reviewed and considered only when supported by valid scientific, ethical, or legal justification. The following constitute acceptable grounds for withdrawal:

  • Discovery of serious methodological errors that invalidate the study’s findings or conclusions
  • Ethical violations (e.g., missing Institutional Review Board (IRB)/ethics approval, plagiarism, or consent issues)
  • Duplicate or multiple submissions discovered
  • Legal or copyright disputes or unresolved authorship conflicts

Unacceptable Grounds for Withdrawal

The journal reserves the right to reject withdrawal requests deemed unethical or administratively invalid. Unacceptable reasons include, but are not limited to:

  • Dissatisfaction with peer-review comments, editorial decisions, or required revisions
  • Withdrawal of a manuscript for the purpose of submission to another or higher-impact journal after it has already benefited from the journal’s peer review or editorial processes
  • Dissatisfaction with the publication timeline or perceived delays in the editorial or production process
  • Discovery of new data or desire to conduct additional experiments does not constitute valid grounds for withdrawal
  • Authors seeking to incorporate new findings should pursue the formal revision process and, where necessary, request an extension from the Editorial Office
  • Inability or unwillingness to pay APCs after formal acceptance is not valid grounds for withdrawal. Authors facing financial difficulties should contact the Editorial Office to explore waivers, payment plans, or alternative arrangements before requesting withdrawal

Submission implies agreement to the journal’s financial terms. In cases of non-payment, the manuscript will remain in a "Pending" status and cannot be withdrawn or submitted to another venue.

Withdrawal Review and Oversight

The journal reserves the right to review and investigate the circumstances surrounding any withdrawal request. A withdrawal request may be declined where there is reasonable suspicion of research or publication misconduct. Withdrawal requests submitted for the purpose of avoiding investigation or potential retraction will not be approved. Where ethical concerns, potential misconduct, duplicate submission, or authorship disputes are identified, the Editorial Office may initiate an investigation in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Misconduct Policy and may follow relevant COPE flowcharts and established ethical review procedures where applicable.

Withdrawal requests will not automatically terminate ongoing investigations. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the authors’ affiliated institutions or relevant authorities.

The journal maintains a permanent, confidential internal record of all withdrawal requests and related correspondence. These records are retained for a minimum period of 7 years or longer where required by applicable regulations for audit, accountability, and ethical oversight purposes. Withdrawal records are not publicly disclosed except as required by law or in cases of confirmed research misconduct.

Repeated or unethical withdrawal practices may result in proportionate sanctions, such as temporary submission restrictions or reports to the authors’ affiliated institutions.