Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology (AJMB) is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal
which accepts the following types of contribution for publication: Original Articles,
Review articles, Brief communications, and Letters to the Editor.
Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor of the journal.
The Peer-Review System, Policy and Confidentiality
An essential part of any publication process is the peer-review process. In this
process the reviewers not only give their scientific view on an article, but also
recommend points for improving the quality of the article. In this way the submitted
articles are refined to such an extent that are published as a logical and scientifically
approved article in a journal.
As a general view; it is the responsibility of the journals to offer an effective
peer-review system. The aims of the AJMB for peer-reviewing are of high standard
and quality. Peer-review process selects papers of significant scientific interest.
AJMB expects referees to not only confirm the novelty of a manuscript but also to
identify the bad features and mistakes. In addition, reviewers are encouraged to
suggest points for improving the submitted article.
Detection of fraud and plagiarism is of utmost significance to the editors of AJMB.
However, the editors do not expect reviewers to identify carefully hidden ideas
and intentions of deceptions in a submitted manuscript. Whenever needed the submitted
manuscripts are written once again. Through a team work the submitted manuscript
is not only evaluated scientifically, its grammar, language and literature are also
assessed. The goal of the AJMB is to publish a well written, scientifically approved
manuscript which is of value for the scientific community and society.
As a peer-review policy, all reviewers are requested to keep the submitted manuscripts
and any associated data confidential. However if a reviewer seeks advice while assessing
a manuscript, he/she must ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the
names of any such colleagues must be provided to the journal as soon as possible.
AJMB makes its utmost effort to keep the content of all submitted manuscripts confidential
until they are published. Although the aim of the journal is to maintain referees’
confidentiality in regard to the submitted article, it is not responsible for the
conduct of reviewers.
In addition to maintaining the confidentiality of the submitted articles the names
of the selected reviewers are also confidential. The names of the referees are not
disclosed to authors or anyone else. As a routine procedure, peer –review process
of a submitted article is blind. However, if an author is felt offended by the offensive
language of a comment given in the reviewers report and successful legal action
has been taken on the author's behalf AJMB does not guarantee to maintain this confidentiality.
Therefore we strongly request the reviewers to be very careful in writing their
comments to the author and refrain from any kind of personal negative comments.
Clear and to the point comments about the scientific content of the submitted manuscripts,
however, are strongly recommended by the editors.
The policy of AJMB is to conceal the identity of reviewers' to authors or to other
reviewers. Also the reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Identified reviewers find themselves in difficult ethical and professional limitations
when requested to comment on the report of other reviewers.
AJMB editors request the reviewers to avoid identifying themselves to authors. However
if they wish to do so, it must be with the editors knowledge. If the reviewers seek
to identify themselves to the author during the peer-review process, it should be
directly with the author. Any type of contact with the author on behalf of the reviewer
is strongly resented.
Similarly any attempt by authors to identify or confront the reviewers is strongly
prohibited and discouraged.
In addition to the technical review of a submitted manuscript, AJMB editors may
seek advice on any aspect of a paper that might raise certain issues. These might
be ethical and legal issues. Very rarely, social and cultural implication of a submitted
manuscript ready for publication may be problematic. In such circumstances in addition
to the usual peer-review process, additional advice will be sought simultaneously.
The editors of the AJMB make the final decision in regard to the publication of
a submitted manuscript.
Invitation for Reviewers
As a scientific journal the goal of the AJMB editorial system is to strengthen its
peer-reviewer process. Therefore it welcomes anyone expert in the fields of AJMB
as becoming one of its reviewers. The interested reviewers are requested to submit
their information via our secure online system by following the link provided in
the "Invitation for Referee" section.
Criteria for publication
In order to be published in AJMB, a submitted manuscript should have the following
- A manuscript should have novelty.
- The conclusion of the manuscript should be supported with sufficient evidence.
- It should be sufficiently interesting to scientists and researchers in the specific
- If reproduced, the method should be applicable.
In general, a manuscript could be acceptable, when represents an advance in a scientific
The Peer-Review Process
As an initial step all submitted manuscripts are read by the editors. Since the
aim of the AJMB is to save time and accelerate the editorial process and publication,
only those papers that meet editorial criteria are sent for the initial review.
As judged by the editors, those manuscripts that are of insufficient scientific
interest or otherwise inappropriate are declined promptly without undergoing any
form of review.
Only those manuscripts which are of significant interest to our readers are sent
for formal review. As an editorial policy, the manuscript is sent to at least three
reviewers. In certain circumstances however, if special advice is needed (e.g. in
statistics or a particular method) help of additional reviewers and experts is sought.
Based on the reviewers' comments and reports the editors then make a decision. The
reviewed manuscript would undergo one of the several possibilities mentioned below:
- Accept without any kind of revisions
- The authors are requested to do minor revision(s) on their
- The authors are requested to do major revision(s) on their
- Reject: Manuscripts rejected after review usually lack
scientific interest and novelty, have insufficient material and/or have interpretational
It is notable that majority of the submitted manuscripts require minor and/or major
revisions before acceptance.
After reviewing the reviewers' reports, the editors convey their comments and views
immediately to the author for necessary changes and implementation .Sometimes in
certain cases such as misunderstanding and misinterpretation further additional
advice is needed. In these circumstances reviewers are contacted once more for their
advice. Therefore the editors request the reviewers to provide follow-up advice
AJMB believes that acceptance of manuscript review, brings commitment on reviewers
behalf for subsequent revisions of the same paper.
AJMB encourages the authors to implement the required changes as mentioned by the
reviewers. However if the authors do not make the essential changes in their paper,
the editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers.
Reviewers' criticisms and comments are considered seriously. When the publication
of reviewed manuscript is opposed by one reviewer only, AJMB seeks the advice of
other reviewers as to understand and clarify the logic of the opposition.
Selection of Reviewers
Selection of peer- reviewers is of utmost importance for AJMB. When selecting
a reviewer factors such as level of knowledge in the related field, specialization
and reputation are considered. In addition our own previous experience of a reviewer's
characteristics is a very important point in the selection of a peer-reviewer. The
language in which the reviewers' comments are expressed is also very significant
for the editors of AJMB. Reviewers with harsh or offensive language are avoided.
We usually do not choose reviewers who are irregular and do not respond on time.
Also ignorant, slow or irresponsible reviewers are not chosen by AJMB editors. AJMB
disregards and discourages any sort of breach of confidentiality in regard to a
manuscript submitted for review.
As a contrary, those reviewers that take full responsibility of the article submitted
to them for review are very much appreciated.
Manuscripts submitted to AJMB for publication are sent to at least three reviewers.
Although the authors are welcomed to suggest any other suitable reviewer, the editor's
decision on the choice of referee is final.
Reviewer's Comments and Report
The main aim and objective of any review process is to provide the essential
required knowledge and information to the editors in order to help them reach a
final decision in regard to a submitted manuscript. In addition to the point mentioned
above, reviewers comment to the author could help them in noting the flaws of their
manuscript. As a result the author would clarify any doubtful point and improve
any weak point in his/her manuscript.
As a rule, the reviewers' reports and comments intended for the authors are transmitted
as such. This is regardless to what the editors of the journal think. However in
rare circumstances where the report contains offensive language or comments, it
is edited or removed. AJMB editors recommend the reviewers to avoid any harsh or
impertinent comments in their reports. On the other hand the authors should realize
that the said criticisms are not offensive and/or unfair simply because they are
delivered in a strong and determined report and statement.
If the reviewers find a manuscript unsuitable for publication, their report to the
author should explain and clarify all those factors which have added up in reaching
this decision. However AJMB strongly discourages harsh and offensive comments at
AJMB understands that reviewers have a very busy schedule and that their acceptance
of reviewing a submitted manuscript is very much appreciated and acknowledged.
Timing of a Review
The goal of the AJMB editorial process is the adoption of rapid editorial
decisions based on reports of the peer-review system and publication. Therefore
in case of agreeing to review a manuscript the reviewers are requested to respond
promptly within the number of days quoted in their "letter of review". However if
due to various reasons the reviewers need to extend the agreed time duration, they
should notify the editors as soon as possible. When informed of such time delays,
the editors can respond accordingly to the authors and prevent from any inconveniences.