editor@hikmahplus.com ISSN: 2XXX-XXXX (Online)

Peer Review Process

Ensuring Excellence Through Rigorous Evaluation

Our Review Process

Biomedicasphere employs a single-blind peer review process to ensure the highest quality of published research. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know who reviewed their work. Each submission is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers for scientific merit, methodology, and contribution to the field.

Review Timeline

1. Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through our online submission system

Day 1
2. Initial Review

Editorial team conducts initial screening for scope and quality

3-5 Days
3. Peer Review

Expert reviewers evaluate methodology, results, and significance

4-6 Weeks
4. Decision

Editorial decision communicated with detailed feedback

1-2 Days

Review Criteria

  • Scientific Merit: Originality and significance of research
  • Methodology: Appropriate design and statistical analysis
  • Clarity: Clear presentation and logical flow
  • Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards
  • References: Appropriate citation of relevant literature

Possible Outcomes

Accept Manuscript accepted with minor or no revisions
Minor Revision Acceptance pending minor corrections
Major Revision Significant changes required, re-review needed
Reject Manuscript does not meet publication standards
Note: All decisions include detailed reviewer comments to help authors improve their work.

For Reviewers

Expert Reviewers

We invite leading researchers and practitioners in biomedical sciences to serve as reviewers for our journal.

Time Commitment

Reviewers typically spend 2-4 hours evaluating a manuscript and have 3-4 weeks to complete their review.

Recognition

Reviewers receive certificates of appreciation and are acknowledged in our annual reviewer recognition program.

Open Peer Review

Biomedicasphere supports transparent peer review as an option. After completing their review, reviewers may be invited to publish their review reports alongside the accepted article. This promotes accountability, recognition, and openness in the scientific review process.

Named Publication

Reviewers can choose to publish their report with their full name and affiliation.

Anonymous Publication

Reviewers can opt to publish their report anonymously if they prefer.

Fully Confidential

Reviewers may decline; their review will remain confidential.

Important: Confidential comments to the editor are never published, regardless of the reviewer's consent choice. Only the summary, major comments, minor comments, recommendation, and quality scores are included in published reports.

Ethics and Standards

Confidentiality

All submissions are treated with strict confidentiality. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and not share or discuss manuscripts under review.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where conflicts exist.

Objective Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, methodology, and contribution to the field. Decisions must be objective, fair, and supported by clear reasoning.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers provide constructive, respectful feedback that helps authors improve their work, regardless of the final decision.

Questions About Our Review Process?

Contact our editorial office for any questions about the peer review process or to volunteer as a reviewer.

Contact Editorial Office More Information