JCollBiomed applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

The peer-review process is guided by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations.

1. Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the JCollBiomed online submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:

• The manuscript complies with the Author Guidelines;
• All authors have approved the submitted version;
• Author information is provided only on the separate title page;
• The main manuscript has been adequately anonymized;
• All required declarations and supporting documents have been submitted; and
• The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.

Submission does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for external peer review.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

Following submission, the editorial office conducts an initial administrative assessment to verify:

• Completeness of the submission files;
• Compliance with manuscript formatting requirements;
• Completeness of author and affiliation information;
• Availability of ethical approval and informed-consent statements;
• Disclosure of funding and competing interests;
• Compliance with applicable reporting guidelines;
• Appropriate anonymization of the main manuscript;
• Similarity or potential plagiarism; and
• Potential duplicate or redundant publication.

Manuscripts with incomplete documentation or substantial formatting problems may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.

3. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript to determine its:

• Relevance to the Focus and Scope of JCollBiomed;
• Scientific originality and significance;
• Methodological appropriateness;
• Ethical acceptability;
• Clarity and quality of scientific reporting; and
• Potential contribution to biomedical knowledge or practice.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it:

• Falls outside the journal’s scope;
• Lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution;
• Contains fundamental methodological weaknesses;
• Does not meet applicable ethical requirements;
• Contains substantial plagiarism or inappropriate duplication; or
• Is inadequately prepared to permit meaningful scientific review.

An editorial rejection at this stage is intended to provide authors with a timely decision and does not necessarily indicate that the topic lacks scientific value.

4. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are assigned to a handling editor with relevant scientific expertise. The handling editor is responsible for:

• Selecting qualified and independent reviewers;
• Assessing reviewer reports;
• Communicating revision requirements;
• Recommending an editorial decision; and
• Ensuring that ethical and procedural standards are maintained.

Editors must declare potential conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling a manuscript when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

5. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Relevant subject-matter and methodological expertise;
• Publication or research experience in the manuscript’s field;
• Independence from the authors and their institutions;
• Absence of financial, professional, personal, or academic conflicts of interest; and
• Ability to provide a timely, objective, and constructive evaluation.

The editorial team may verify reviewers’ identities, affiliations, institutional email addresses, publication records, and potential relationships with the authors. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the editor is not obligated to invite them. The journal will not use reviewer suggestions when reviewer identity, independence, or expertise cannot be adequately verified.

The journal reserves the right to invite an additional statistical, methodological, ethical, or technical reviewer when specialized assessment is required.

6. Double-Blind Review

JCollBiomed uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers do not receive author names, affiliations, contact details, or acknowledgments, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Authors must remove identifying information from the main manuscript and its metadata. However, the journal cannot guarantee complete anonymity when authors cite their previous work, describe a distinctive research setting, or make a related preprint publicly available.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact the authors. All communication concerning the manuscript must occur through the editorial office.

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope;
• Originality and importance of the research question;
• Adequacy of the literature review and identification of the knowledge gap;
• Appropriateness of the study design;
• Participant or sample selection;
• Sample-size justification;
• Validity and reproducibility of the methods;
• Quality of laboratory, clinical, computational, or experimental procedures;
• Appropriateness of the statistical analysis;
• Completeness and clarity of the results;
• Consistency between the data, interpretation, and conclusions;
• Consideration of bias, confounding, uncertainty, and study limitations;
• Ethical approval, informed consent, and animal-welfare compliance;
• Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines;
• Scientific quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials;
• Accuracy and relevance of the references; and
• Overall contribution to biomedical science and human health.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions required to support the scientific validity of the manuscript and optional suggestions intended to improve its presentation.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically sound and suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not fundamentally alter the study, analysis, or conclusions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial methodological clarification, additional analysis, restructuring, or reconsideration of its interpretation before a publication decision can be made. A major-revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript has potential scientific value but requires fundamental redevelopment that cannot reasonably be addressed through a standard revision. A resubmitted manuscript will be treated as a new submission and may be assigned to different reviewers.

Reject

The manuscript contains substantial concerns regarding originality, methodology, ethics, interpretation, reporting, or relevance that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

9. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, and authors’ responses before making a recommendation. Editorial decisions are based on the quality and reasoning of the reviews rather than on a simple count of reviewer recommendations.

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may:

• Conduct an independent editorial assessment;
• Request clarification from the reviewers;
• Invite an additional independent reviewer;
• Consult a statistical, methodological, or ethical expert; or
• Discuss the manuscript with another member of the editorial board.

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over publication decisions.

10. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit:

• A clean revised manuscript;
• A version showing tracked or highlighted changes; and
• A detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments.

Each response should:

• Reproduce or clearly identify the reviewer’s comment;
• Explain how the manuscript was revised;
• Identify the page and line numbers where the revision appears; and
• Provide a scientific and respectful explanation when a recommendation is not followed.

Authors should not respond merely with “revised as suggested” without identifying the corresponding changes.

Minor revisions should normally be returned within 14 days, while major revisions should normally be returned within 30 days. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the deadline. A manuscript may be closed or treated as a new submission when a revision is substantially delayed without prior communication.

11. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly when:

• Major methodological changes have been made;
• Additional analyses have been requested;
• The interpretation or conclusions have changed substantially; or
• The adequacy of the authors’ responses requires expert reassessment.

For minor revisions, the editor may evaluate the revision without an additional external-review round. Multiple rounds of revision may be requested when scientifically justified.

12. Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that:

• The research is scientifically and ethically sound;
• Reviewer and editor concerns have been adequately addressed;
• The conclusions are supported by the evidence;
• All required declarations and documentation are complete; and
• The manuscript complies with the journal’s editorial requirements.

Following acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication checks. Acceptance may be withdrawn if serious ethical concerns, inaccurate declarations, manipulated data, or publication misconduct are identified before publication.

13. Estimated Review Time

JCollBiomed aims to complete:

• Administrative and preliminary editorial screening within approximately 7 working days;
• Initial external peer review within approximately 2–4 weeks after reviewer assignment; and
• The first editorial decision within approximately 4–6 weeks of submission.

These periods are targets rather than guarantees. Review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for specialist assessment, and the number of revision rounds.

The quality and integrity of the peer-review process take priority over rapid decision-making.

14. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential and privileged communications. Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized individuals;
• Publicly discuss the manuscript;
• Use unpublished data, methods, or ideas for personal or professional advantage;
• Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review; or
• Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.

A reviewer wishing to involve a colleague or trainee must first obtain permission from the editor. Any individual who contributes to the review must be identified to the editor and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must not upload an unpublished manuscript, figure, table, supplementary file, or reviewer report to a generative AI system or other third-party platform when confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured.

Any proposed use of AI to assist with peer review requires prior editorial authorization and must be disclosed. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, originality, fairness, and tone of their reports. AI-generated assessments cannot replace expert scientific judgment.

This policy follows current ICMJE guidance on AI use by reviewers.

16. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation. Relevant conflicts may include:

• Employment at the same institution as an author;
• Recent or ongoing research collaboration;
• Supervisory, mentoring, or student relationships;
• Personal or family relationships;
• Direct academic competition;
• Financial interests;
• Intellectual or ideological conflicts; or
• Involvement in a closely related manuscript or dispute.

When uncertainty exists, the potential conflict should be disclosed to the editor, who will determine whether participation is appropriate.

17. Research and Publication Misconduct

If reviewers or editors identify possible plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, unethical research, authorship irregularities, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, or peer-review manipulation, the concern will be investigated in accordance with COPE procedures.

The journal may request original data, ethical documents, image files, laboratory records, or clarification from authors and their institutions. Peer-review activity may be suspended while an investigation is ongoing.

18. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.

The submitting editor or editorial board member will have no access to reviewer identities, reviewer selection, editorial discussions, or the final decision. The manuscript will be handled independently by another qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

19. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial scientific or procedural error affected the outcome. An appeal must:

• Be submitted by the corresponding author;
• Clearly identify the manuscript;
• Explain the specific grounds for the appeal;
• Address the scientific or procedural issues underlying the decision; and
• Provide supporting evidence when appropriate.

Disagreement with the decision alone is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

The appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. Additional review may be requested when necessary. Only one formal appeal will normally be considered for each manuscript.

Complaints concerning confidentiality, conflicts of interest, reviewer conduct, editorial conduct, discrimination, or procedural irregularities will be handled confidentially and in accordance with COPE guidance on complaints and appeals.