Peer Review Process

Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of research published in SBC. We appreciate your valuable contribution to the peer review process. Here are the guidelines for reviewers:

1. Participation and Cooperation: Authors are required to participate in the peer-review process fully. They should promptly respond to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and documentation related to ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions.

2. Response to Revision Requests: If a manuscript receives a decision of "Minor or Major revisions," authors should respond systematically and on time to the reviewers' comments. They are expected to revise and resubmit their manuscript by the provided deadline. Failure to do so without proper explanation may result in the removal of the submitted paper, and no further papers from the corresponding author will be accepted in the future.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities:

   • Prompt Decision: Reviewers are encouraged to accept or decline review invitations quickly, based on the manuscript's title and abstract.
   • Suggesting Alternatives: If an invitation must be declined, reviewers are welcome to suggest alternative reviewers who may be suitable.
   • Request for Extension: Reviewers may request an extension if additional time is needed to prepare a report.

4. Review Assessment: Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on various criteria, including originality, significance, presentation quality, scientific soundness, interest to readers, overall merit, and the level of English proficiency.

5. Check for Self-Citations: Reviewers are expected to check the manuscript's reference list for inappropriate self-citations.

6. Recommendation and Report: Reviewers provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript. Additionally, they should offer a detailed, constructive review report.

Potential Conflicts of Interest:

Reviewers are responsible for informing the journal editor if they have any conflicts of interest that may bias their review report, whether positively or negatively. The editorial office will make efforts to check for conflicts before inviting reviewers. Reviewers who are invited to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest per se. In such cases, reviewers are encouraged to inform the journal whether the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version.

Confidentiality and Anonymity:

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, including the abstract. If reviewers need to delegate the review to a colleague, they should inform the Editorial Office. Reviewers will have access to other reviewers' reports through the online submission system after submitting their reports.

Timely Review Reports:

To provide an efficient and high-quality publishing service, we ask reviewers to submit their review reports promptly. If an extension is needed, please contact the editorial office to request an extension to the review deadline.

Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure:

SBC conducts a thorough peer-review process to ensure transparency and fairness. After an initial check by the Managing Editor, an editorial board member is assigned as the paper's editor. The editor assigns the paper to different external reviewers, and the review process proceeds with at least two review reports. Throughout this process, reviewers are selected based on their expertise and objectivity, and their evaluations play a pivotal role in shaping the manuscript's final form. Additionally, authors are provided with an opportunity to respond to reviewers' comments, fostering constructive dialogue and scholarly exchange. The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and sends it to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision is made by the academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or a Guest Editor for Special Issues). Accepted articles undergo rigorous copy-editing and English editing to ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to journal standards. This meticulous process aims to maintain the highest quality of research published in SBC, contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or any unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should report these concerns to the editor immediately. Your diligence in upholding research integrity is greatly appreciated.

Please consider that we also follow the COPE guidlines regarding the ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS.