Review Policies
This policy describes the peer-review model, reviewer selection, editorial decision-making, and conflict-of-interest requirements of the World Journal of Experimental Biosciences (World J Exp Biosci). For guidance on reviewer responsibilities and manuscript evaluation criteria, please refer to the journal's Peer Review Guidelines. For a detailed description of the editorial workflow and review timelines, please see the Peer Review Process.
Peer Review Model
World J Exp Biosci uses double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review: authors and reviewers remain unknown to one another throughout the process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are not affiliated with the authors' department or institution.
Reviewer Selection
1. At least two independent subject-matter experts, unaffiliated with the authors' department, are selected to review each submitted manuscript.
2. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, providing institutional email addresses and identifiers (e.g., ORCID, Scopus ID). Suggested reviewers are not automatically selected; the Editor-in-Chief accepts or declines suggestions at their discretion.
3. Authors may request the exclusion of specific individuals as reviewers but must explain the reason in their cover letter at submission. Authors are asked not to exclude an excessive number of individuals, as this may hinder the review process; the Editor-in-Chief retains discretion to invite an excluded reviewer where warranted.
4. Intentionally falsifying reviewer information for example, suggesting a reviewer with a false name, affiliation, or email address will result in rejection of the manuscript and may trigger further investigation under the journal's misconduct policy (see the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement).
Conflict of Interest
Where the double-blind process is not applicable (e.g., due to the specialized nature of the field), the assigned reviewer must sign a declaration confirming the absence of any conflict of interest before proceeding. A conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to:
- Personal, financial, or professional relationships that could bias the review;
- A current or recent supervisory, reporting, employment, or other professional relationship with any of the authors;
- Direct scientific collaboration with any of the authors within the preceding two (2) years.
If reviewers become aware of the identity of the author(s), whether accidentally or by recognizing the manuscript, and believe that a conflict of interest exists, they must promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief and decline the review.
Review Delivery and Editorial Decision-Making
· Reviews must be submitted in written form and conclude with an unambiguous recommendation on whether the manuscript should be published, revised, or rejected.
· A manuscript is recommended for publication upon receiving two (2) positive reviews, subject to any further revisions requested by the reviewers or editor and final editorial approval.
· Where one (1) review is negative, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript, or, at its discretion, to invite a third independent reviewer to help resolve the disagreement before a final decision is made.
· The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection in all cases and is not bound solely by reviewer recommendations.
Compliance with International Standards
World J Exp Biosci requires that all manuscripts and editorial processes comply with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), specifically the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These Review Policies are additionally informed by the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Related Policies
