Peer Review Process

The peer review process of World Journal of Experimental Biosciences follows international standards and the principles recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
 Reviewers should not upload manuscripts into external systems or AI tools. If AI assistance is used in drafting reviewer comments, confidentiality must always be preserved. Manuscripts and related materials must remain confidential. Reviewers must not share or use any manuscript content for personal gain. 

All submissions to the World Journal of Experimental Biosciences undergo rigorous peer review to ensure scientific quality and integrity.

  1. Review Type
    The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process to minimize bias.

  2. Number of Reviewers
    Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers selected for their subject expertise. Reviewers are external to the authors’ institutions. Authors may suggest potential reviewers with institutional emails or identifiers (e.g., ORCID, Scopus ID). The Editor-in-Chief may accept or decline suggested reviewers. Authors may request exclusion of certain reviewers, with explanation.

  3. Initial Editorial Check
    After submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial technical, ethical, and scope-relevance screening. Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent for external peer review.

  4. Review Criteria
    Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • originality and contribution to knowledge

  • scientific soundness and methodology

  • clarity and presentation

  • ethical compliance

  • relevance to the journal scope

They recommend one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if a conflict exists. Conflicts include personal, financial, or professional relationships that may bias the review.

  1. Editorial Decision
    The Editor-in-Chief (or an Associate Editor) makes the final publication decision after considering reviewer reports. Constructive feedback is provided to authors.

  2. Timelines and Transparency
    Review timelines typically range from 4 to 8 weeks and are communicated to authors. Authors may withdraw manuscripts if delays exceed this period.

  3. Exceptions
    Original research articles and review articles undergo double-blind peer review. Editorials, invited commentaries, letters to the editor, book reviews, news items, and similar contributions are handled solely by the Editorial Office and do not undergo external peer review; this is clearly indicated at submission.

Reviewers can download the standard review form from review form