POLICY GUIDELINES AND SOPs FOR PEER REVIEW

· Biomedica follows double blind peer review policy as per ICMJE criteria and COPE guidelines.(https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

· The timely and quality review of manuscripts is an essential stage in publication of Biomedica.

· A reviewer for Biomedica is selected by the Editorial Board based on having:

· relevant expertise and up-to-date knowledge in the subject

· no conflict of interest

· reasonable time and commitment

· easy access (authentic electronic mail or postal address)

· known personally or professionally by the Editorial Board (to avoid fraudulent cases)

· Each reviewer must register as a Reviewer on the OJS of the journal through the website using the same email address from which he/she has received review invitation.

· Each reviewer shall be sent NO more than one manuscript for each issue of the journal

· Editor(s) should ensure NOT to assign a reviewer with the same institutional affiliation as that of (any of the) authors. In case if the reviewer still receives the request for review, he/she should inform the Editor(s) regarding this situation.

· Reviewer shall send a written acceptance or decline for the request within 5 working days to the Editor(s).

· After acceptance, each reviewer is expected to make expert, critical, and unbiased scientific and literary appraisals of manuscripts in her/his field of knowledge and expertise.

· Each reviewer is desired to give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references in respect of scientific content.

· The reviewer shall return completed reviews on prescribed proformas within the Editor(s) deadline i-e a period NOT exceeding 3 weeks from the receipt of the manuscript.

· A reviewer shall NOT review a manuscript if:

· The individual does not feel competent to appraise the research or issues in the manuscript.

· The reviewer believes there may be a conflict of interest or that a close personal or professional relationship with the author(s) will bias judgment of the manuscript.

· The reviewer has published with the authors within the previous three years.

· If there is any doubt in these areas, the manuscript shall be returned un-reviewed to the Editor(s) with an explanation within 5 working days after receipt of manuscript.

· Each reviewer must understand that manuscripts are confidential and no part of the manuscript under review shall be revealed to others. Therefore individuals other than the assigned reviewer shall not provide independent reviews for the referee to sign. For this purpose each reviewer must sign and submit a “Confidentiality Agreement Form” accompanying the manuscript, sent by the Editorial Coordinator.

· The reviewer's critique of a manuscript, especially if the overall judgment is unfavorable, shall be detailed, supported by appropriate references, and made available to the author in a constructive language.

· The reviewer shall report any substantial similarity of the manuscript to a published paper or another submitted manuscript and shall note when important work of others is improperly cited or omitted.

· The decision to recommend acceptance shall be based on an unbiased appraisal of the scientific and literary quality of the manuscript by considering comments from both reviewers. In case of discrepancy, a third reviewer may be assigned and final decision shall be made by the Editor(s) in light of the comments from the third reviewer.

· The quality of review shall be periodically evaluated by the Editorial Board. Reviewers who fail to adhere to the desired level of scientific and technical review, on three successive feedbacks from the Editor(s), may be removed from the panel. The Editor shall apprise the reviewer about the decision in writing.

· It is the discretion of the Reviewer to get his/her reviews published at the end of the manuscript published in the journal.

· In case of any complaint or suggestions, reviewer may inform the Editor in writing or through a scheduled meeting

· Each reviewer shall make it possible to attend the Annual Meeting with the Editorial Board of Biomedica.

· Each reviewer shall be paid Rs.1500 by cheque in his/her name as an honorarium for reviewing the article.