Peer Review Policy

The Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB) follows a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer-review process designed to maintain scientific quality, objectivity, and fairness. The journal adheres to international guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

All submissions undergo double-blind peer review — the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the evaluation process to ensure impartial judgment.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process is central to the journal’s commitment to uphold scientific integrity and academic excellence. It helps validate research quality, verify methodological soundness, and ensure that published findings contribute meaningful advancements to the fields of proteomics, bioinformatics, and molecular life sciences.

2. Review Model

APB employs a double-blind review model where:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Editorial communications are handled anonymously through the OJS/PKP platform.

This approach minimizes bias and ensures objective evaluation of manuscripts based solely on scientific merit.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial office for scope relevance, compliance with author guidelines, ethical approval statements, and plagiarism check. Manuscripts that meet initial standards are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor for peer review assignment.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication history, and absence of conflict of interest with the authors. The editorial board maintains a diverse global reviewer pool to ensure balanced and inclusive evaluation.

  • Typically, two independent reviewers are invited for each manuscript.
  • In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer or senior editor may be consulted.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following parameters:

  • Originality and significance of the research question.
  • Scientific rigor, experimental design, and data analysis.
  • Clarity of presentation and structure.
  • Appropriateness of references and data interpretation.
  • Ethical compliance and reproducibility.

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and make one of the following recommendations:

Recommendation Decision Description
Accept Manuscript suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
Minor Revision Requires small adjustments to text, figures, or references.
Major Revision Needs substantial improvement in data, structure, or discussion.
Reject Does not meet scientific or ethical standards for publication.

6. Duration and Timeline

The average peer-review process in APB takes 2 – 4 weeks from submission to initial decision, depending on reviewer availability and article complexity. Authors receive editorial updates at every stage through the OJS platform.

7. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from sharing or discussing them with third parties. Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.

  • Unethical use of unpublished information is strictly prohibited.
  • Reviewers must provide feedback in a respectful, evidence-based manner.
  • All comments should aim to improve the quality of the research.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations and the journal’s editorial policies. Decisions are communicated clearly, and reasons for rejection or revision are provided to the authors for transparency.

9. Author Revisions and Resubmission

Authors receiving revision requests must respond point-by-point to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified time. The revised submission may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or an alternate expert depending on the changes made.

Resubmission Window: Authors are typically allowed 15 – 30 days for minor revisions and 45 – 60 days for major revisions.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial advisor or external expert not involved in the initial decision.

11. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge their contribution to the scientific community, APB provides certificates of appreciation to reviewers annually. Reviewers may also opt to record verified review activity through platforms such as Publons or ORCID Reviewer Recognition.

12. Ethical Oversight

The peer-review system is monitored to ensure fairness, confidentiality, and adherence to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Misconduct or breaches of confidentiality are investigated and may result in reviewer exclusion or institutional notification.

13. Transparency and Data Sharing

The journal supports transparent peer-review initiatives. With author consent, anonymized reviewer reports may be shared for educational or audit purposes. All data referenced during peer review must remain confidential unless publicly available.

14. Continuous Improvement

APB periodically evaluates its peer-review policies to integrate new technologies (e.g., AI-assisted review tools) and best practices ensuring efficiency, inclusivity, and quality assurance.

15. Contact Information

For inquiries about the peer-review process, conflict reporting, or review participation, please contact:

© 2025 Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB) · Heighten Sciences Publication Incorporation

Source Reference: Based on COPE, ICMJE, and WAME Peer-Review Ethical Guidelines.