Peer Review Process

At Advances in BioScience (ISSN 2583-0058), we take pride in maintaining a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of academic excellence. Following submission, members of our esteemed editorial board diligently evaluate each submission to ensure compliance with submission guidelines, editorial policies, and ethical standards. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, outside the scope of the journal, are of poor scientific quality, or contain poor grammar or English language. Authors whose manuscripts are rejected at the initial evaluation stage are usually notified within a week of receipt. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening process will be sent to expert reviewers with deep domain expertise to critically analyze the merits and demerits of the submitted research. The following steps outline how our peer-review process operates:

  • Author anonymity: Upon submission, your identity is concealed from the reviewers. This eliminates potential bias based on reputation or affiliation, allowing your work to be judged solely on its merits.
  • Expert evaluation: Your manuscript is assigned to qualified reviewers with recognized expertise in your field. They meticulously assess your work based on originality, methodology, significance, and adherence to scientific rigor.
  • Constructive feedback: Reviewers provide detailed and objective feedback, highlighting strengths, suggesting improvements, and raising any concerns. This valuable input helps you refine your research and strengthen your manuscript for publication.
  • Editorial oversight: The Editor-in-Chief carefully considers the reviewers' comments and makes a final decision on publication. This ensures that only the highest quality research finds its place within the pages of ABS.

Benefits of our single-blind peer-review process

  • Reduced bias: Authors are judged based on the quality of their research, not their reputation.
  • Enhanced objectivity: Reviewers provide unbiased feedback, focusing solely on the scientific merit of the work.
  • Improved quality: The rigorous review process ensures that only the most impactful research is published.
  • Constructive collaboration: Authors receive valuable feedback to strengthen their research and advance their field.

Manuscript Review and Decision Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process. Based on reviewer feedback, the manuscript will be categorized as:

  • Accepted: Ready for publication without revisions.
  • Accepted with revisions: Requires minor changes to improve clarity, conciseness, or specific aspects.
  • Revision required: Needs major revisions to address significant issues raised by reviewers.
  • Rejected: Does not meet the journal's standards or scope.

Review Timeline

  • First decision (accept, reject, or revisions required):4 weeks after manuscript receipt.
  • Minor revision submission: 2 weeks after receiving feedback.
  • Major revision submission: 3-4 weeks after receiving feedback.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication based on reviewer reports and revised manuscripts (if applicable).

Production process

Upon acceptance for publication, manuscripts undergo meticulous copyediting and typesetting to ensure the highest quality.

  • Copyeditors: A copyeditor thoroughly reviews your manuscript for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal's style guide.
  • Typesetting: Your article is formatted according to the journal's layout specifications for professional presentation.

After copyediting and typesetting are complete, the corresponding author will receive a final PDF proof for careful review within 8-12 days. This final review is strictly for typographical and factual errors. We request you to complete it within 3-5 business days to ensure timely publication. If your article is particularly complex or you have extenuating circumstances, please contact us to discuss a possible extension.

Please note: At this stage, only minor typographical and factual corrections are permitted to preserve the integrity of the peer-reviewed content. Substantive changes to the content are not allowed.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a decision or raise a concern regarding the peer-review process should submit a formal written communication to the Editor-in-Chief at This communication should provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal or complaint. All such matters are carefully reviewed by the journal's editorial board, adhering to the established guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).