Peer Review Process
All submissions to World J Exp Biosci undergo rigorous peer review to ensure scientific quality, integrity, and editorial independence. The Journal follows internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing and publication ethics, including the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This page describes the step-by-step editorial workflow. For reviewer responsibilities and manuscript evaluation criteria, see the Peer Review Guidelines; for the governing rules on reviewer selection, conflicts of interest, and editorial decision-making, see the Review Policies.
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. Initial Editorial Check
On submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial technical, ethical, and scope-relevance screening, including a similarity/plagiarism check and an assessment of compliance with the journal's ethical, reporting, and submission requirements (Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement). Manuscripts that fail this stage for example, due to incomplete submission, insufficient fit with the journal's Aims & Scope, or an unacceptable similarity index are returned to the author or rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to external peer review.
3. Number and Selection of Reviewers
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers, with relevant subject expertise and, wherever possible, external to the authors' institutions. Authors may suggest potential reviewers with institutional email addresses and identifiers (e.g., ORCID, Scopus ID); The Editor-in-Chief retains sole discretion to invite or decline any suggested reviewer. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals as reviewers, with justification (see Review Policies for full reviewer-selection rules).
4. Review Criteria and Decision Categories
Reviewers evaluate each manuscript on:
· Originality and contribution to knowledge.
· Scientific soundness and methodology.
· Clarity and presentation.
· Ethical compliance.
· Relevance to the journal's scope.
Each reviewer recommends one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest including personal, financial, or professional relationships that could bias the review and recuse themselves where a conflict exists (see Review Policies for the full conflict-of-interest definition and procedure).
5. Use of AI in the Review Process
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, in whole or in part, into external systems or public/third-party generative AI tools, in order to protect author confidentiality and intellectual property. Where AI assistance is used only to support the drafting of reviewer comments (e.g., language polishing), confidentiality of the manuscript content must always be preserved and any such use disclosed to the editorial office, consistent with the journal's AI Policy.
6. Confidentiality
Manuscripts and related materials are confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers must not share, retain beyond the review, or use any manuscript content for personal or professional purposes. All manuscript files must be securely deleted or destroyed after the review is complete unless otherwise required by the editorial office.
7. Reviewer Misconduct
Any suspected breach of reviewer confidentiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, plagiarism, misuse of manuscript content, or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence tools may result in removal of the reviewer from the journal's reviewer database and, where appropriate, notification of the reviewer's institution.
8. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief (or an Associate Editor) makes the final publication decision after considering all reviewer reports and provides constructive feedback to the authors. A manuscript is generally recommended for publication upon receiving two positive reviews, subject to any requested revisions and final editorial approval. Where reviewer recommendations conflict (e.g., one positive and one negative review), the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third independent reviewer to help resolve the disagreement, or may seek an additional independent review or make a final editorial decision based on the scientific merit of the manuscript and the available reviewer reports.
9. Timelines and Transparency
The journal publishes its target processing timelines on the homepage and updates them periodically based on actual editorial performance:
|
Stage |
Target timeline |
|
Submission to first decision |
12 days |
|
Submission to decision after review |
40 days |
|
Submission to acceptance |
55 days |
|
Acceptance to online publication |
15 days |
These timelines are indicative targets rather than guarantees, and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required. The journal's current acceptance rate is approximately 25%. Authors may contact the editorial office at any time to request a status update, and may withdraw a manuscript if delays substantially exceed the published targets.
10. Exceptions
Original research articles and review articles undergo full double-blind peer review as described above. 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 to authors at submission.
Review Form
Reviewers can download the standard review form to help structure their evaluation.
Related Policies
· Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
