Peer Review Process

 PUBLICATION AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS (ENHANCED)

All submissions to the Journal of Current Biomedical Research (JCBR) undergo rigorous editorial screening and double-blind peer review to ensure quality, relevance, and integrity.

 Initial Editorial Screening

Each new submission is first checked by the Managing Editor for completeness, plagiarism/similarity (using plagiarism detection software), adherence to author guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards.

Submissions that pass these checks are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who assigns an appropriate Handling Editor based on subject expertise.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JCBR operates a double-blind review system: neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

The Handling Editor invites at least two independent expert reviewers, who may include Editorial Board members or external experts.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts for:

originality and significance,

methodological rigor,

technical accuracy,

clarity and quality of presentation, and

objectivity of interpretation.

Editorial Decision

Upon receipt of reviewer reports, the Handling Editor evaluates the feedback and makes a recommendation (accept, minor/major revision, or reject).

The Editor-in-Chief reviews this recommendation and issues the final decision to the author.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving revision requests must address reviewer and editor comments and submit a revised manuscript.

Revised submissions may be re-reviewed to ensure all concerns are adequately addressed.

 Acceptance and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.

The final Version of Record is published online with a DOI.

  1. Transparency of Publication History

Each published article displays the following dates:

  • Received
  • Revised (if applicable)
  • Accepted
  • Published

Reviewer Integrity

JCBR expects reviewers to declare conflicts of interest and to review submissions objectively and confidentially.

Reviews are considered advisory; final editorial decisions rest with the journal.