The Journal of Biochemical Technology is built around a double-blind peer review system: throughout the entire evaluation process, authors never learn who reviewed their work, and reviewers never learn whose work they are reviewing. We hold to this approach because we believe genuine objectivity only emerges when a manuscript is judged purely on its scientific merit — not on the author's name, institution, or reputation. This careful, multi-stage structure is what protects the fairness, integrity, and scientific rigor of everything we publish.
A basic precondition for any submission is originality: the manuscript must not be under review anywhere else, and it must never have been published before, in any form. Every step of the process — submission, review, and production runs through a secure digital platform, so the workflow stays transparent and traceable for everyone involved.
The Review Process
✓ Initial Editorial Pre-Check
As soon as a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an Associate Editor appointed for this purpose — carries out a preliminary evaluation. This check looks at three things in particular: whether the manuscript genuinely fits within the journal's scope, whether it meets ethical research standards (including proper ethical approvals and documented informed consent), and an initial plagiarism screen. Manuscripts that fall short on any of these fronts are desk-rejected at this stage, without proceeding to full peer review.
✓ Subject Expert Assignment and Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that clear the pre-check move on to an Associate Editor (or International Editor) whose expertise matches the subject matter. This editor conducts a deeper internal assessment of the study's methodology and scientific foundation. Their role goes beyond simply confirming the manuscript is suitable — they're responsible for identifying and inviting at least two independent external reviewers whose expertise closely aligns with the paper's specific topic.
✓ External Peer Review
At this stage, at least two independent reviewers examine the manuscript from several angles: scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, and clarity of presentation. Each reviewer submits their report and recommendation directly to the Associate Editor and the EIC. Throughout this stage, the identities of both reviewers and authors remain strictly confidential to one another.
✓ Final Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief weighs the Associate Editor's recommendation together with the detailed reports from the external reviewers to reach a final decision. Acceptance requires at least two favorable reviews. If reviewers disagree — one recommends acceptance, another recommends rejection — a third independent expert is brought in to break the tie. A decision based on a single review is reserved for rare, exceptional cases where finding a second qualified reviewer genuinely isn't possible (this happens in fewer than 5% of all reviewed submissions), and any such decision must be fully documented and justified by the EIC.
Editorial Decisions and Revision
Depending on the outcome of review, a manuscript follows one of four paths:
Accept after Minor Revisions: Authors are asked to address all reviewer comments within a specified timeframe.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: Authors must respond point-by-point to every reviewer comment. As a general rule, up to two rounds of substantial revision are permitted.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission: Manuscripts that need extensive additional experiments or further data collection are declined in their current form, with an invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript once that work is done.
Reject: Manuscripts with serious scientific flaws, significant ethical breaches, or no original contribution are rejected outright, with no option for resubmission.
One point worth emphasizing: every reviewer comment, without exception, must be addressed individually and in full. If authors disagree with a reviewer's critique, they're expected to provide a clear, well-reasoned justification in their response letter — simply stating disagreement isn't enough.
Review Duration and Complaints Policy
Duration: The review process typically takes one to two months, depending on how quickly reviewers respond and how complex the manuscript is.
Complaints Policy: The journal is committed to handling every complaint fairly and constructively. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision can contact the Editor-in-Chief directly. Complaints about journal policies, procedures, or editorial conduct are acknowledged within six working days, with progress updates shared every two weeks until the matter is resolved. The Editor-in-Chief's ruling on any complaint is considered final.
Becoming a Reviewer
If you're a qualified expert interested in contributing your expertise as a peer reviewer, we'd genuinely welcome hearing from you. Just reach out to our editorial team at:
