For Reviewers

Reviewer Login

Reviewers can access assigned manuscripts and submit review reports through the BIOCA online journal system.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals without the editor's permission. Unpublished data, ideas, or findings obtained during peer review must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should obtain the editor's permission before consulting another expert.

Before Accepting an Invitation

• Confirm that the manuscript is within your expertise and that you can provide a fair, timely, and thorough assessment.
• Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, including personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors or research.
• Decline if you cannot complete the review within the requested period or if a conflict could compromise your impartiality.
• Do not accept a review assignment to gain access to confidential research information.

General Review Criteria

Consider the following aspects as relevant to the article type and subject area:

• Relevance and originality: Is the manuscript appropriate for BIOCA's scope and does it offer a meaningful contribution to biomedical, chemical, pharmaceutical, or related applied research?
• Scientific quality: Are the research question, study design, methods, controls, and analyses appropriate and adequately described?
• Results and interpretation: Are findings clearly presented, supported by data, and interpreted without overstatement?
• Figures, tables, and data: Are data clear, consistent, and relevant? Do figures and tables support the conclusions?
• Literature and references: Are references relevant, accurate, and sufficient?
• Ethics and integrity: Are ethical approvals and declarations reported where applicable? Are there concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated images, or questionable data?
• Clarity and organization: Is the manuscript logically structured and clearly written?

Research Articles

• Evaluate whether methods are suitable, sufficiently detailed, and reproducible.
• Check sample size, controls, replicates, statistical methods, and uncertainty reporting where relevant.
• Assess whether conclusions are consistent with the evidence and whether limitations are acknowledged.
• Check consistency across the text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
• For computational or in silico studies, consider model suitability, assumptions, validation, and interpretation of predictions.

Review Articles

• Assess the importance and relevance of the topic to BIOCA readers.
• Evaluate the breadth, balance, and currency of the literature covered.
• Consider whether the article critically synthesizes evidence rather than merely listing previous studies.
• Review the organization, clarity, figures, tables, and conclusions.

Preparing the Review Report

• Provide clear, specific, constructive comments supported by scientific reasoning.
• Distinguish major concerns affecting validity or contribution from minor presentation issues.
• Explain why revisions are necessary and suggest practical improvements where possible.
• Keep comments professional and respectful; avoid personal or discriminatory remarks.
• Separate confidential comments to the editor from comments intended for the authors.
• Do not include identifying information in reviewer comments if the review process is configured to be anonymous.

Recommendation and Editorial Decision

Reviewers should provide a recommendation using the options available in the BIOCA review system, supported by the reasons in their report. Options may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The recommendation is advisory; the editor makes the final decision after considering the reports, manuscript, and BIOCA policies. The editor may seek additional advice or invite a revised manuscript.

Ethical Concerns

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or ethical approval concerns, they should inform the editor confidentially and provide supporting evidence where possible. Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors about suspected misconduct unless instructed by the editor.

Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are encouraged to submit reports within the deadline stated in the invitation. If additional time is needed, they should notify the editor as early as possible. If unable to complete the review, they should inform the editorial office promptly.