Editorial policies

Journal of Biology and Health Science follows a rigorous, fair and transparent editorial workflow to ensure the publication of high-quality research. The journal adopts a double-blind peer-review system, where both the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial board members.

Stage 1: Submission and Initial Screening

All manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation before being sent for peer review. This stage is typically completed within 2 working days.

  1. Acknowledgment of Submission

Authors receive a confirmation email upon submission along with a unique manuscript ID for tracking.

  1. Scope and Formatting Check

The editorial office verifies that the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal’s scope 
  • Follows author guidelines 
  • Contains all required sections 

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected at this stage.

  1. Anonymization Check

To maintain the integrity of the double-blind process:

  • Author names, affiliations and identifying details must be removed 
  • Self-referencing should be written in a neutral manner 

Manuscripts that fail to meet anonymization standards may be returned for correction.

  1. Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are checked using plagiarism detection tools. Manuscripts exceeding acceptable similarity thresholds may be rejected or returned for revision.

  1. Ethical Compliance Verification

Authors must provide:

  • Conflict of Interest statement 
  • Ethical approval (if applicable) 
  • Data availability statement 
  • Author contribution details 
  • AI usage disclosure (if applicable) 

Stage 2: Editorial Assignment

This stage is completed within 2-3 working days.

  1. Handling Editor Assignment

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a handling editor with subject expertise.

  1. Reviewer Selection

The handling editor selects at least 2–3 independent reviewers based on expertise and ensures no conflicts of interest. Reviewer identities remain confidential.

Stage 3: Double-Blind Peer Review

  1. Review Process

Under the double-blind system:

  • Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities 
  • Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities 

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance 
  • Scientific rigor and methodology 
  • Clarity of presentation 
  • Ethical standards 
  • Relevance to the journal 
  1. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following decisions:

  • Accept 
  • Minor Revision 
  • Major Revision 
  • Reject 
  1. Conflict Resolution

If reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may:

  • Assign an additional reviewer or 
  • Make a decision based on editorial judgment 

Reviewers are expected to submit reports within 7 days.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

Authors are typically notified within 2 days of submission.

Decision Outcomes

  • Accept – Manuscript is approved 
  • Minor Revision – Small changes required 
  • Major Revision – Significant improvements needed 
  • Reject – Manuscript does not meet standards 

Revision Policy

  • Authors must submit a detailed response to reviewer comments 
  • Revised manuscripts should highlight all changes 
  • Usually, up to two rounds of revision are permitted 

Stage 5: Production and Publication

  1. Acceptance Notification

Authors receive an official acceptance letter.

  1. Copyediting and Formatting

The manuscript undergoes professional editing and typesetting.

  1. Proof Correction

Authors review proofs and respond within 48 hours. Only minor corrections are allowed.

  1. Online Publication

Accepted articles are published online with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for permanent access.

  1. Indexing and Archiving

Articles are indexed in relevant databases and archived for long-term preservation.

Stage 6: Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions under justified circumstances.

Grounds for Appeal

  • Reviewer bias or conflict of interest 
  • Errors in evaluation 
  • Procedural issues 

Appeal Procedure

  • Submit appeal within 21days 
  • Independent reassessment may be conducted 
  • Final decision is communicated within 21 days 

Timeline Overview

Stage

Activity

Timeline

Initial Screening

Compliance checks

2 days

Editor Assignment

Reviewer invitation

2 days

Peer Review

Evaluation

7 days

Decision

Editorial outcome

2 days

Revision

Author updates

5 days (if required within cycle)

Publication

Final processing

3 days (post-acceptance, expedited)

 

Key Highlights

  • Double-blind peer review ensuring impartial evaluation 
  • Strict ethical and plagiarism checks 
  • Structured and transparent editorial workflow 
  • Efficient turnaround time 
  • Global accessibility through online publication