Editorial Process

Pre-check
The pre-screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor.
Upon submission, the Managing Editor will conduct a technical pre-check to assess:
  • The overall suitability of the manuscript to JABBS;
  • Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
  • Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.
The academic editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or a member of the Editorial Board in cases of conflict of interest) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During this phase, the academic editor will assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, scientific soundness, including the relevance of references and the correctness of the methodology. The academic editor can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or proceed with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.
Peer Review
JABBS operates a double-blind peer review process, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's identity. At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The academic editor can suggest reviewers during pre-check, or the editorial staff will identify qualified reviewers from our database or through web searches for related articles.
Authors can recommend potential reviewers, but the editorial staff will ensure there are no conflicts of interest. Authors can also request to exclude specific reviewers during the initial submission. If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers may apply to review a submitted manuscript with the authors' consent.
Reviewers are expected to:
  • Have no conflicts of interest with the authors;
  • Not be from the same institution as the authors;
  • Not have published together with the authors in the last three years;
  • Hold a PhD or equivalent qualification;
  • Have relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field;
  • Provide quality review reports within the given timeframe (7–10 days for initial reviews, three days for revised manuscripts).
Open Peer Review
Authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses alongside the published paper (open reports). This enhances transparency and trust, allowing readers to track the peer review process. Reviewers are encouraged to sign their reports (open identity), receiving credit for their contribution and demonstrating commitment to open science. If an article is rejected, no details will be published.
Revision
If minor or major revisions are recommended, authors will be asked to revise the paper before it is referred back to the academic editor. In cases of conflicting reviews or recommendations for rejection, feedback from the academic editor will be sought before communicating revision decisions to the authors. Additional reviewers may be invited at this stage.
Revised manuscripts may be sent to reviewers who requested to see the revised version. A maximum of two rounds of major revisions are typically allowed. If the revision period is expected to exceed two months, authors are advised to withdraw and resubmit to avoid unnecessary delays.
Editor Decision
Acceptance decisions are made by the academic editor after peer review, once a minimum of two review reports have been received. The academic editor can choose from the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, request further revisions, or seek an additional reviewer.
Special Issue
All Special Issue articles undergo the same rigorous and impartial peer review as regular submissions. Guest Editors oversee the editorial process and make recommendations based on all review comments. They are welcome to suggest reviewers before peer review and must have no conflicts of interest with the authors. Papers submitted by Guest Editors to their own Special Issue must be handled independently and should not exceed 25% of the total issue.
Author Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection by emailing the Editorial Office within three months of the decision date, providing detailed justification and point-by-point responses to reviewers' and/or editors' comments. Appeals are only considered following a "reject and decline resubmission" decision. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript to a designated Editorial Board Member for an advisory recommendation, which will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A final rejection decision at this stage is not reversible.
Production
JABBS's in-house teams handle production for all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing, and conversion to XML. Professional English editing staff ensure high-quality language standards. In cases requiring extensive editing or formatting, an optional English editing service is available for an additional fee (with authors' prior approval). Authors are also free to use other English editing services or consult a native English-speaking colleague.
Publishing Standards and Guidelines
JABBS adheres to the following guidelines and standards to ensure the quality and integrity of its publications:
  • Transparency and Openness (TOP): JABBS aims to adhere to level 1 or 2 standards of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, ensuring that research is reported with clarity and openness. Specific requirements can be requested from the editorial office.
  • FAIR Principles: JABBS encourages authors to follow the FAIR Principles to enhance the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of data. This ensures that data supporting the research is available and usable by other researchers.
  • PRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, JABBS recommends that authors complete the PRISMA checklist and flow diagram, ensuring that these types of studies are reported with the necessary rigor and transparency.
  • iThenticate: To maintain the originality of submissions, JABBS uses iThenticate, an industry-standard software for plagiarism detection. This tool is used during the initial screening of manuscripts and throughout the peer review process to ensure that published work is original.
  • Compliance and Communication: Authors are expected to comply with these standards and guidelines. Any discrepancies should be clearly explained in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript. Compliance will be considered during the final decision-making process.
Publication Ethics
JABBS follows COPE's procedures for addressing unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors. All editorial staff are trained to detect and respond to ethical issues. Disputes regarding research validity, authorship, data ownership, or misconduct will be investigated following COPE guidelines. Authors are required to respond to any substantiated allegations made against them.
For authorship disputes, we follow COPE guidelines. If all authors agree, authorship can be updated via a Correction. Otherwise, an authoritative statement from the authors' institution(s) is required.
Editorial Independence
All articles published in JABBS are peer-reviewed by our independent Editorial Board. Journal staff are not involved in manuscript acceptance decisions. Academic editors are expected to base their decisions solely on:
  • The suitability of the selected reviewers;
  • The adequacy of reviewer comments and author responses;
  • The overall scientific quality of the paper.