Peer-Review Policy
Peer-Review Policy
The Journal of Drug Delivery and Biotherapeutics (JDDB) is committed to ensuring the integrity, quality, and transparency of the peer-review process. This policy outlines the journal's peer-review procedure and the responsibilities of all participants in the review process.
- Peer-Review Process
JIMP employs a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure impartiality.
- Submission:
- All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Drug Delivery and Biotherapeutics (JDDB) are first screened by the editorial team for compliance with the journal’s scope, format, and basic quality standards.
- Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria are returned to the authors without external review.
- Reviewer Selection:
- Manuscripts are assigned 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.
- Review Criteria:
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria: - Originality and significance of the research.
- Scientific rigor and methodology.
- Relevance to the journal's scope.
- Clarity and quality of writing.
- Ethical compliance, including approval from relevant ethics boards.
- Decision-Making:
Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions: - Accept as is: The manuscript is ready for publication.
- Minor revisions: The manuscript requires small changes before acceptance.
- Major revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvements and will undergo another round of review after resubmission.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.
- Communication with Authors:
Authors receive constructive feedback from reviewers, including suggestions for improvement. The editorial decision is communicated with clear reasoning.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Confidentiality:
- Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed with others outside the review process.
- Constructive Feedback:
- Reviewers are expected to provide objective, detailed, and constructive feedback that helps improve the quality of the manuscript.
- Timeliness:
- Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the specified deadline. If unable to do so, they must inform the editor immediately.
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
- Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if they feel unable to provide an unbiased review.
- Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns:
- Reviewers are encouraged to identify potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or improper ethical approval, and report these to the editor.
- Responsibilities of Authors
- Responding to Reviewer Comments:
- Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments thoroughly and resubmit revised manuscripts promptly.
- A point-by-point response to reviewers’ feedback must be provided.
- Maintaining Anonymity:
- Authors should ensure their manuscripts do not include identifying information during the review process.
- Responsibilities of Editors
- Ensuring Fairness:
- Editors must ensure that manuscripts are evaluated impartially, without bias related to the authors' race, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
- Maintaining Confidentiality:
- Editors must not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone outside the review process.
- Final Decision:
- The editor has the final responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s standards.
- Appeals Process
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must:
- Be submitted in writing to editorjddb@sennosbiotech.com
- Provide a detailed explanation of why the author disagrees with the decision.
The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may involve additional reviewers to reassess the manuscript.
- Transparency in the Review Process
JIMP is committed to transparency in the peer-review process:
- A detailed record of the review process is maintained for each manuscript.
- If a manuscript is accepted, reviewers’ contributions may be acknowledged (with their consent).
