Peer Review Process

1. Preliminary Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of a new manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial editorial screening to determine whether the submission is readable, complete, properly formatted, original, within the scope of Biomedical and Chemical Applications (BIOCA), structured according to scientific article conventions, and written in clear English. An initial assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality is also performed to ensure that the reported research findings are meaningful and sufficiently complete.

All manuscripts submitted to BIOCA are screened for potential plagiarism using iThenticate plagiarism detection software. In addition, the Editorial Office verifies the validity and accessibility of the email addresses provided for all co-authors. If any co-author's email address is invalid or unreachable, as indicated by a bounced email, the manuscript may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review. The corresponding author may correct the co-author's information and resubmit the manuscript as a new submission.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the above requirements may be rejected during the preliminary screening stage. Decisions made at this stage are also reviewed by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or the relevant Section Editor, where applicable.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary editorial screening proceed to the formal peer review process. Eligible manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers who assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, validity of the results, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in fields relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. Their assessments and recommendations serve as important considerations in the editorial decision-making process.

The Editor is responsible for making the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The editorial decision is final. Editors must not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts they have authored, manuscripts written by their family members or close colleagues, or manuscripts related to products or services in which they have a personal interest or other potential conflicts of interest. Such manuscripts must be handled by an appropriately independent editor.

3. Reviewer Invitations and Conflicts of Interest

To maintain the objectivity and integrity of the peer review process, prospective reviewers are expected to consider any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office of any circumstances that could compromise their impartiality, including situations in which they:

  • Have direct competition with any of the manuscript's authors.

  • Are current colleagues or collaborators of any of the authors.

  • Could benefit commercially or otherwise from the work under review.

  • Have any other relationship or interest that could prevent them from providing an objective and impartial assessment.

If a prospective reviewer is unable to provide an impartial assessment because of a conflict of interest, BIOCA will seek an alternative reviewer.

4. Reviewer Reports and Confidentiality

Reviewer reports are communicated to the authors together with the editorial decision letter. Reports are generally forwarded in full, although minor editorial adjustments may be made to improve clarity, correct spelling or typographical errors, and remove any text that could inadvertently reveal the reviewer's identity.

The identities of reviewers are treated as strictly confidential and are disclosed only to authorized members of the BIOCA Editorial Board who are required to maintain this confidentiality.

BIOCA employs a single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

Reviewers are requested not to send their reports directly to the authors or disclose their identities to them. Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts under review and refrain from discussing the contents of those manuscripts with colleagues before publication.

5. Revised Manuscripts

When authors revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers' comments, the editor evaluates the revised submission and the authors' responses. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the editor may make a decision directly or send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments carefully and provide a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. The final decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

6. Proofreading and Author Proofs

After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the proof of the article is sent electronically to the corresponding author for checking. The corresponding author is expected to review the proof carefully for typographical errors, formatting issues, and inaccuracies introduced during the production process.

The corrected proof must be returned to BIOCA within 48 hours of receipt. At this stage, only corrections necessary to ensure the accuracy and quality of the published article should be made. Substantial changes to the content of the accepted manuscript are not permitted without editorial approval.