Peer Review Process

The Journal of Marine Pharmacy and Biomedicine (JMPB) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of all published manuscripts. In this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editorial Team to determine its suitability for the journal's scope, compliance with author guidelines, originality, and overall scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts containing substantial plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected.

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication records.

Double-Blind Review

The journal applies a double-blind review system in which:

  • Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript solely based on its scientific merit.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Scientific rigor and methodological quality.
  • Validity and reliability of results.
  • Quality of discussion and conclusions.
  • Appropriateness of references and citations.
  • Clarity, organization, and presentation of the manuscript.
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision.
  • Minor Revision – The manuscript requires minor modifications before acceptance.
  • Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript may undergo further review.
  • Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers' comments within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. Failure to submit revisions within the allotted time may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority to accept or reject a manuscript for publication based on reviewer reports, editorial evaluation, and compliance with the journal's publication standards.

Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final production before publication. Authors will have the opportunity to review proofs before the article is published online.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to complete the peer-review process efficiently. The average review timeline is:

  • Initial Editorial Assessment: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer Review Process: 2–6 weeks
  • Author Revision: 1–4 weeks
  • Final Editorial Decision: 1–2 weeks

Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.