Editorial Workflow Policy

Editorial Workflow Policy

The Journal of Drug Delivery and Biotherapeutics (JDDB) follows a transparent and systematic editorial workflow to ensure the timely and ethical handling of manuscripts. This policy outlines the steps involved in processing submissions from initial receipt to publication.

1. Submission Process

1. Online Submission:
• Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.
• All submissions must comply with the journal’s Submission Guidelines and include required documents (e.g., cover letter, conflict of interest disclosures, ethical approval documentation).
2. Acknowledgment:
• Authors receive an automated acknowledgment confirming receipt of their submission.

2. Initial Screening

1. Scope and Compliance Check:
• The editorial office reviews the manuscript to ensure it aligns with the journal’s scope and formatting requirements.
• Submissions that fail to meet basic standards are returned to authors for revision or rejected.
2. Plagiarism Check:
• All submissions are screened for plagiarism using appropriate software (e.g., iThenticate).
• Manuscripts with significant overlap or ethical concerns are rejected, and authors are informed.

3. Assignment to an Editor

1. Editor Selection:
• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor (Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Section Editor) based on the topic and expertise.
2. Conflict of Interest Review:
• Editors must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.

4. Peer-Review Process

1. Reviewer Selection:
• The editor assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and lack of conflicts of interest.
2. Double-Blind Review:
• The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process to maintain impartiality, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.
3. Reviewer Feedback:
• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, scientific rigor, methodology, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal.
• Reviewers provide detailed feedback, including recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
4. Decision:
• Based on reviewer feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no changes.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small adjustments before acceptance.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required; the revised manuscript will undergo another round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.
5. Communication with Authors:
• The editor communicates the decision to the authors, including detailed reviewer comments and guidance for revisions.

5. Revision Process

1. Author Revisions:
• Authors are required to address all reviewer and editor comments in a point-by-point response and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe (e.g., 2-4 weeks).
2. Re-Evaluation:
• The revised manuscript is reviewed by the editor and, if necessary, the original reviewers.
3. Final Decision:
• The editor makes a final decision based on the revised manuscript’s quality and compliance with reviewer feedback.

6. Acceptance and Production

1. Final Approval:
• Once a manuscript is accepted, the editorial office conducts a final check for formatting, compliance, and accuracy.
2. Proofreading:
• Authors receive galley proofs to review and approve before publication.
• Minor corrections may be made at this stage, but substantive changes are not allowed.
3. Publication:
• The manuscript is published online in the journal’s next issue or as an Advance Online Publication (AOP) if applicable.

7. Post-Publication

1. Archiving and Indexing:
• Published articles are archived and indexed in relevant repositories and databases to ensure discoverability and long-term accessibility.
2. Corrections and Retractions:
• Errors identified after publication are addressed in accordance with the journal’s Withdrawal, Retraction, and Correction Policy.

8. Timelines

The journal strives to process submissions efficiently while maintaining quality and rigor:

• Initial Screening: 1-2 weeks
• Peer Review: 4-6 weeks
• Revision and Re-Evaluation: 1-2 weeks
• Final Decision and Publication: 1-2 weeks

9. Ethical Compliance

The editorial workflow adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the journal’s Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy to ensure integrity and fairness throughout the process.

10. Policy Updates

This policy is reviewed periodically to reflect changes in editorial practices and publishing standards. Updates will be reflected on the journal’s website.