Peer Review Guidelines

Peer reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to improve submitted manuscripts and to help the Editor-in-Chief determine suitability for publication in World J Exp Biosci. These guidelines describe what is expected of reviewers and are consistent with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

World J Exp Biosci operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the process. Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers selected for relevant subject expertise. Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors. For a full description of the editorial workflow submission handling, reviewer assignment, decision categories, and timelines see the journal's Peer Review Process and Publication Process pages.

1. Accepting a Review Invitation

On receiving an invitation from the Editor-in-Chief, reviewers should consider the following before accepting:

·      Expertise fit. If part of the manuscript falls outside your area of expertise (e.g., statistical methodology, epidemiological data, animal study design), let the editor know so that additional expert input can be arranged if needed.

·      Availability. If you are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, decline promptly and, where possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

·      Conflicts of interest. Disclose any potential conflict of interest promptly so an alternative reviewer can be identified (see Section 4).

·      Capacity for impartial review. Only accept a manuscript if you are able to provide an impartial, confidential, and objective evaluation.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following before submitting their recommendation:

·      Novelty and significance. Is the research question important, and does the manuscript add value to the scientific literature? If conclusions are not original, please cite the relevant prior work. For review articles, does the manuscript offer a genuinely new perspective? Would the work be of interest within your discipline or more broadly?

·      Quality and presentation. Do the title and abstract accurately reflect the manuscript's content? Does the introduction clearly state the study's objectives and summarize the relevant literature to provide context?

·      Scientific and methodological soundness. Is the study design appropriate to the research question? Are statistical tests applied correctly and probability values accurately reported? Are the claims in the results and discussion supported by the data and the cited literature? Have the authors adequately discussed the limitations of their work? Are tables and figures clear, correctly labeled, necessary, and sufficient?

·      Ethics and reproducibility. Where applicable, confirm that ethical approval, informed consent, and animal welfare reporting meet the journal's Research Ethics requirements. Consider whether the manuscript provides enough methodological detail for reproducibility and whether underlying data are appropriately available.

·      Relevance to readership. Are the conclusions likely to interest the journal's readership, and how broad is that interest likely to be?

·      Overall merit. Does the work meaningfully advance current knowledge, on balance, in favor of publication?

·      Language. Is the manuscript written in clear, comprehensible English? (Reviewers are not expected to correct grammar or style in detail the editorial office manages copyediting for accepted manuscripts but comments that help clarify meaning are welcome.)

3. Writing the Review

·      Provide full, constructive comments on all relevant aspects of the manuscript to support the Editor-in-Chief's decision-making.

·      If recommending rejection or major revision, clearly explain and justify the specific concerns raised.

·      Where you suggest a significant change, explain the rationale and, where relevant, provide supporting references. Distinguish clearly between essential revisions needed to support the manuscript's claims and optional suggestions for future work.

·      Distinguish your personal opinion from assessments grounded in the published literature.

·      Keep all comments respectful, professional, and free of personal criticism of the authors.

·      You may provide confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief in addition to your comments to the authors. Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or other research or ethical misconduct should be flagged directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

A downloadable review form is available to help structure your evaluation; reviewers are welcome to use it or submit comments in free-text form.

4. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

·      Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could bias their assessment (e.g., competitive, collaborative, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors) and must recuse themselves where a potential for bias exists.

·      Manuscripts under review are privileged, confidential communications and remain the private property of the authors. Reviewers must not discuss a manuscript publicly, share it with others, or make use of its content or ideas before publication.

·      Reviewers must not retain copies of manuscripts beyond the review process and should delete or destroy any copies after submitting their review.

·      Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

·      Submissions authored by editors or editorial board members are assigned to, and handled independently by, other editors to avoid conflicts of interest.

·      Reviewer identities are kept confidential; anonymized reviewer comments may be used internally by the editorial board for quality assurance and reviewer training purposes.

5. Editorial Decision and Re-Review

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation where appropriate. Reviewers are asked to complete reviews within the timeframe indicated on the journal's Publishing Timeline page, or to notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly if an extension is required.

6. Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers are formally acknowledged on an annual basis in recognition of their contribution to the journal.

7. Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may contact the Editor-in-Chief directly. Appeals are reviewed in accordance with COPE's ethical guidelines and the process set out in the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.