Peer Review Process

The Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer-review process to maintain the highest quality of published research. This ensures that editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, and ethical integrity.

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening, followed by double-blind peer review by at least two qualified independent experts. The process complies with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review and ICMJE Recommendations.

1. Overview of the Peer-Review Workflow

  1. Step 1 – Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the Online Journal System (OJS).
  2. Step 2 – Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor assesses the manuscript for suitability and plagiarism check (≤ 15% similarity threshold).
  3. Step 3 – Reviewer Assignment: Two or more reviewers with relevant expertise are invited.
  4. Step 4 – Double-Blind Review: Reviewer and author identities remain confidential throughout.
  5. Step 5 – Evaluation: Reviewers provide structured comments and recommendations (accept / minor revision / major revision / reject).
  6. Step 6 – Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes the decision.
  7. Step 7 – Author Revision: Authors revise the manuscript and respond point-by-point.
  8. Step 8 – Final Verification: Revised papers are re-evaluated by editors (and reviewers if needed).
  9. Step 9 – Acceptance & Publication: Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing, proofing, and online publication with DOI assignment.

2. Type of Peer Review

APB employs a double-blind review model in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to prevent bias. In rare cases, the journal may use open or invited review with mutual consent for transparency.

3. Reviewer Selection Criteria

  • Expertise in proteomics, bioinformatics, computational biology, or related fields.
  • No conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.
  • Strong publication and review track record.
  • Commitment to ethical reviewing practices and confidentiality.

4. Evaluation Parameters

Parameter Reviewer Focus
Originality Novel hypothesis, innovative approach, or significant advancement.
Scientific Validity Appropriateness of methods, reproducibility, and statistical rigor.
Clarity Logical structure, presentation of data, and quality of figures/tables.
Ethics Compliance with ethical standards for human/animal studies.
References Accuracy, relevance, and inclusion of recent literature.

5. Review Duration and Timeline

  • Initial editorial screening: 3–5 days
  • Reviewer assignment and acceptance: 5 days
  • Review completion: 2–3 weeks
  • Author revision period: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision and publication: within 6–8 weeks of submission

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are expected to address each reviewer comment systematically. Revised manuscripts must include a “Response to Reviewers” document highlighting modifications. The handling editor verifies all revisions before final decision.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer feedback may result in rejection or re-review.

7. Ethical Principles in Review

The review process must remain confidential, impartial, and respectful. Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest and refrain from using unpublished data for personal research.

  • All communication takes place through the OJS platform.
  • Misconduct such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research is reported following COPE procedures.

8. Post-Acceptance Quality Check

Before publication, accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • CrossCheck plagiarism verification
  • Technical editing and reference formatting
  • Ethical statement and data-availability verification

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial committee, whose decision is final.

10. Transparency and Accountability

All peer-review records are securely stored in the OJS database for accountability. Editors regularly audit reviewer performance to maintain review quality and adherence to ethical standards.

11. Reviewer Recognition

APB recognizes the contributions of its reviewers through annual certificates, acknowledgment in the journal’s reviewer list, and verified credit in platforms like Publons or ORCID.

12. Data Integrity and AI Tools

AI-based screening tools are used only for similarity checks or language refinement. Final judgments are always human-driven. Editors ensure transparency when such tools are employed.

13. Flow Summary Diagram (Simplified)

  • Submit → Screen → Assign Reviewers → Review → Decision → Revise → Re-review → Accept → Publish

14. Contact Information

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

Source Reference: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review, ICMJE Recommendations (2024), WAME Peer Review Policy, DOAJ Transparency Principles.