Peer Review Process
Minang Bioscience Journal (MBJ) applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This procedure is intended to ensure objective, fair, and high-quality evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
1. Initial Manuscript Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editorial Team to determine their compliance with the journal's Focus and Scope, author guidelines, manuscript structure, and basic publication requirements. Manuscripts may also be checked using plagiarism detection software.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without proceeding to peer review.
2. Editorial Assessment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are evaluated by the Editor based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodology, and contribution to the field of biological sciences. The Editor determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further peer review.
3. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, research experience, and relevant expertise.
MBJ makes every effort to avoid conflicts of interest in the selection of reviewers.
4. Double-Blind Review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide comments and recommendations based on the following aspects:
- Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
- Originality and novelty of the research;
- Clarity of the research objectives;
- Appropriateness of research methods and data analysis;
- Quality and validity of the results;
- Discussion and interpretation of findings;
- Contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge;
- Quality of scientific presentation and language;
- Completeness and relevance of references; and
- Compliance with publication ethics.
5. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the Editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept — the manuscript is accepted with no or only minor revisions;
- Minor Revision — the manuscript requires minor corrections or improvements;
- Major Revision — the manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation;
- Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
The final decision rests with the Editor, taking into consideration the reviewers' comments and the overall quality of the manuscript.
6. Revision Process
When revisions are required, authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Authors are also expected to provide a clear and systematic response to each reviewer comment.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
7. Final Acceptance and Publication
Manuscripts that meet the journal's scientific and editorial standards will receive a final acceptance decision. Accepted manuscripts will proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading before being published online.
8. Review Duration
MBJ strives to conduct the peer review process efficiently and within a reasonable timeframe. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and the time taken by authors to complete revisions.
9. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
All stages of the peer review process are conducted confidentially. Reviewers must not use, disclose, or take advantage of any information contained in manuscripts under review. Reviewers are also required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor.
