Reviewer Management

Overview

At Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences, we recognize that rigorous peer review is the foundation of trustworthy scholarly publishing. Our reviewer management framework ensures that every manuscript is evaluated fairly, ethically, and promptly by qualified experts in medicine, biology, and related health sciences.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

  • Subject Expertise: Reviewers are chosen based on expertise in clinical medicine, biomedical sciences, public health, molecular biology, genetics, and allied disciplines.

  • Eligibility: Selection considers academic qualifications, research experience, and prior peer-reviewed publications.

  • Diversity: We maintain a balanced pool of reviewers across regions, genders, and career stages.

  • Reviewer Invitations: Invitations include the manuscript abstract, expected deadlines (2–4 weeks), and a conflict-of-interest declaration.

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

  • Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure impartiality.

  • Balanced Workload: The editorial office tracks assignments to avoid overburdening individual reviewers.

  • Inclusivity: Experienced experts and early-career researchers are both invited to foster diversity and mentorship.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Evaluation Criteria: Reviews focus on originality, scientific rigor, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to medical and biological sciences.

  • Timeliness: Reports are expected within 2–4 weeks. Delays must be communicated promptly.

  • Confidentiality: Manuscript content must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal gain.

  • Ethical Duty: Reviewers must alert editors to suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical concerns.

4. Communication and Support

  • Editors remain available to clarify manuscript content or review expectations.

  • Reviewer contributions are acknowledged annually, and certificates of appreciation are available upon request.

  • High-performing reviewers may be considered for the editorial board.

5. Quality Assurance in Reviews

  • Reviews are assessed for depth, fairness, and constructiveness.

  • Inconsistent or conflicting reviews may prompt a third review or editorial adjudication.

  • Reviewers providing consistently inadequate reports may be excluded from future invitations.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

  • Training: Webinars and guidance on peer review ethics and best practices are offered.

  • Recognition: Outstanding reviewers are highlighted in annual reports.

  • Incentives: Consideration for APC discounts, priority handling of reviewer-authored submissions, and opportunities for editorial roles.

7. Conflict of Interest and Misconduct

  • Reviewers must declare any financial, academic, or personal conflicts of interest.

  • Breaches of confidentiality, bias, or misuse of manuscript content are considered misconduct and may result in removal from the reviewer pool, institutional notification, or reporting to COPE.

Conclusion

By upholding fairness, professionalism, and accountability, Trends in Medical and Biological Sciences ensures that peer review strengthens the quality and credibility of all published research.