PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Transactions of the Institute of Molecular Biology & Biotechnologies (TIMBB) adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review policy to uphold the quality, transparency, and academic integrity of its published research. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Main type of peer review used by TIMBB:

Double-blind: The reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

1. Initial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial review by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors to evaluate:

• Scope alignment with the journal,
• Compliance with formatting and ethical guidelines,
• Plagiarism screening (via reliable software tools),
• Overall scientific quality and novelty.

Submissions not meeting the basic requirements may be desk-rejected without peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are forwarded to at least two independent reviewers, selected based on their:

• Subject-matter expertise,
• Absence of conflicts of interest,
• Record of peer-review activity or academic reputation.

Reviewers are invited and given 1–2 weeks to accept the invitation. Upon acceptance, they are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete the review.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following:

• Originality and significance of the research,
• Appropriateness and rigor of methods,
• Accuracy and clarity of data presentation,
• Validity of conclusions,
• Ethical considerations (e.g., human/animal research compliance),
• Adequacy of citations and engagement with relevant literature,
• Quality of English and presentation.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit detailed reports and choose one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revisions,
• Minor revisions,
• Major revisions,
• Reject.

Reviewer comments are anonymized and sent to the authors along with the editorial decision.

5. Author Revision and Re-review

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments in a point-by-point format and submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated time frame (usually 2–4 weeks for minor revisions; 4–6 weeks for major revisions).

In cases of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.

6. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Academic Editor makes the final decision based on:

• Reviewer reports,
• Author responses,
• The overall contribution to the field.

Decisions may include: Acceptance, Further revision, Rejection.

7. Publication Timeline

The average timeline from initial submission to final decision is 6–8 weeks, with accepted manuscripts typically published within 8–12 weeks after acceptance.

8. Ethical Oversight

TIMBB strictly adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to prevent:

• Plagiarism,
• Duplicate publication,
• Data manipulation,
• Reviewer misconduct,
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

All ethical violations are taken seriously and may result in retraction or further disciplinary action.

Peer Review Benefits

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:

• More robust – peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
• Easier to read – if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.
• More useful – peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.