BioQuestica

Peer Review Policy

BioQuestica uses independent expert review to evaluate the originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and significance of all manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer Review Model

BioQuestica operates a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to promote impartiality and minimize potential bias.

Authors should ensure that their manuscripts are prepared for anonymous review by removing identifying information from the manuscript file where required.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office and the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts that do not satisfy the criteria mentioned before may be rejected without external peer review.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent experts with appropriate subject-matter expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their scientific qualifications, publication record, research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editors seek reviewers from diverse institutions and geographical regions whenever possible. The journal may invite additional reviewers when specialized expertise is required or when reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty;
• Scientific importance and relevance;
• Methodological rigor and study design;
• Accuracy and validity of data analysis;
• Interpretation of results;
• Ethical compliance;
• Clarity, organization, and quality of presentation;
• Adequacy of references and contextualization within existing literature;
• Overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for the final editorial decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit:

• A revised manuscript with changes clearly indicated or highlighted, where requested;
• A detailed response to reviewers explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a scientific justification when recommendations are not followed.  

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation at the editor's discretion.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. Manuscripts should not be shared, discussed, copied, or used for personal research prior to publication without explicit permission from the journal. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations;
• Complete reviews within the requested timeframe;
• Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors where appropriate;
• Alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, data fabrication, ethical concerns, or other forms of research misconduct;
• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or unable to complete the review promptly should decline the invitation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations to review manuscripts when any conflict of interest could influence their judgment. Conflicts may include personal relationships, recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial interests, or direct academic competition with the authors.

Ethical Oversight During Peer Review

Editors and reviewers may request additional documentation during peer review, including:

• Ethics committee or institutional review board approvals;
• Patient consent documentation, where applicable;
• Trial registration information;
• Raw data or supporting datasets;
• Reporting checklists and supplementary materials.

Failure to provide the requested documentation may result in rejection of the manuscript.

Research Integrity

BioQuestica is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Suspected cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship disputes, peer review manipulation, or other forms of publication misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

The journal may contact authors' institutions or funding organizations where necessary to support investigations into potential misconduct.

Timeliness

BioQuestica strives to provide authors with timely editorial decisions while maintaining a thorough and rigorous review process. Review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual error or procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should provide a detailed scientific rationale and will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent senior editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Transparency and Continuous Improvement

BioQuestica periodically reviews its peer review procedures to ensure alignment with internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing. The journal is committed to fairness, transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement of the peer review process.