Decision-Making Process

At Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences, we are committed to a transparent, rigorous, and impartial editorial process that upholds the highest standards of scientific publishing. Each manuscript is evaluated systematically to ensure originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope in medicine, biological sciences, biotechnology, and public health.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Review
Upon submission, manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial office to verify:

  • Compliance with formatting and structural requirements (title page, abstract, keywords, references, etc.)

  • Adherence to the journal’s plagiarism policy (maximum 10% similarity, following HEC’s 19% guideline)

  • Completion of author details, ethical declarations, funding disclosures, and license agreements

Scope and Relevance Check
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor determines whether the submission aligns with the journal’s scope and whether it makes a meaningful contribution. Manuscripts outside the scope may be desk-rejected without peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Submissions passing the initial checks are sent for double-blind peer review. At least two independent subject experts are invited to provide critical and constructive evaluations.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts on:

  • Originality and contribution to medical or biological sciences

  • Research design and methodological robustness (e.g., experimental studies, RCTs, cohort studies, meta-analyses)

  • Clarity of results and depth of discussion

  • Ethical compliance, especially for studies involving human or animal subjects

  • Adherence to scientific reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA)

Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend:

✅ Accept (as is)
✏️ Minor Revisions (editorial check only)
???? Major Revisions (resubmission, possible re-review)
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Synthesis of Reviews
The handling editor consolidates reviewer feedback. In cases of disagreement or borderline recommendations, a third reviewer or consultation with the editorial board may be sought.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on peer reviews and internal evaluation. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject

Authors receive a formal decision letter that includes anonymized reviewer comments.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions
Authors are generally given 2–4 weeks to address comments. The revised version is checked by the handling editor.

Major Revisions
Authors have 4–8 weeks to resubmit. Substantive changes may require a second round of peer review.

Resubmission After Rejection
Rejected manuscripts are normally not reconsidered. However, if reviewers or editors provide constructive guidance, authors may submit a significantly improved version as a new submission.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification
Authors are formally notified via email, including:

  • The editorial decision

  • Reviewer comments

  • Next steps for revision or publication (if accepted)

Appeals Process
Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a written request with justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent panel. The appeal outcome is final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Requirements
Upon acceptance, authors must provide:

  • The revised, final manuscript

  • Author bios and affiliations

  • Signed copyright/licensing agreement

  • High-resolution figures and tables

Copyediting and Proofs
Manuscripts are professionally copyedited for clarity, accuracy, and consistency. Proofs are sent to authors for final approval.

Online Publication
The final version is published in the next scheduled issue of the journal and made openly available under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest
All authors, reviewers, and editors must declare potential conflicts of interest, including financial, institutional, or personal relationships.

Research Ethics Compliance
Submissions involving human or animal subjects must include ethical approval and (when relevant) informed consent statements. Non-compliant manuscripts will be rejected.

Data and Reporting Integrity
The journal promotes transparency and reproducibility. Any evidence of data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation will result in retraction and possible institutional notification.

This decision-making process reflects Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences’ commitment to scientific excellence, ethical publishing, and editorial transparency, ensuring that only high-quality, peer-reviewed research is published.