JBCS

We request that reviewers conduct their evaluations thoroughly, impartially, and responsibly, adhering to the technical and ethical principles outlined herein. Your role is essential in ensuring the quality and integrity of the scholarly content we publish. The use of offensive language or insults is strictly prohibited; the language must always be technical, respectful, and polite.

Please ensure that you provide your review within the allotted timeframe of 14 days and inform the editorial office immediately if you anticipate a delay.

1. Scientific Rigor and Quality

• Clarity of Research Question: Assess whether the manuscript clearly states its objectives or hypotheses and whether these are original or address a relevant gap in the field.

• Significance and Novelty: Consider the impact of the findings on the broader scientific community. Manuscripts should substantially advance knowledge or understanding within the relevant discipline.

• Methodological Soundness: Verify that the methods used are appropriate, reproducible, and sufficiently detailed to allow validation or replication by other researchers.

• Data Analysis and Interpretation: Evaluate the accuracy of the results, the robustness of statistical analyses (when applicable), and the soundness of the authors’ conclusions.

• Presentation of Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Materials: Reviewers should assess the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of figures, tables, and supplementary materials provided in the manuscript. These elements should be well-organized, properly labeled, and directly support the findings and conclusions of the study. Ensure that captions and legends are comprehensive and that all visual elements are of high quality and appropriate resolution. Additionally, confirm that figures and tables are appropriately referenced within the text.

2. Ethical Standards and Conduct

• Confidentiality and co-review: Treat all information in the manuscript as strictly confidential. Do not share any part of the submission or discuss it with individuals outside the review process. Failure to adhere to these guidelines may compromise the integrity of the review process. If you wish to involve a co-reviewer, you must:

  • Ensure the co-reviewer possesses relevant expertise to provide a meaningful contribution.

  • Confirm that the co-reviewer agrees to adhere strictly to confidentiality and ethical guidelines. Co-reviewers must also comply with all ethical guidelines outlined for reviewers.

  • Clearly indicate their involvement in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” section, specifying their names, e-mails and contribution.

• Identity and Anonymity: Many major publishers permit reviewers to sign their reviews if they wish. While most peer reviews remain anonymous, reviewers may choose to sign their reports if desired, making this practice optional rather than mandatory. This practice can promote trust, accountability, and open communication among researchers, but ultimately it is a personal decision left to each reviewer, based on individual comfort and preference.

• Conflict of Interest Disclosure: If you have any financial, personal, or professional conflict that could affect your impartiality, please inform the editorial office immediately so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

• Objectivity and Respect: Provide constructive, unbiased feedback. Critiques should be based on evidence and scientific merit, rather than personal opinions or biases.

• Proper Use of Content: Do not use any unpublished data, figures, or information from the manuscript for personal gain or distribute it to others without permission.

• Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance: Report any instances of suspected plagiarism or unethical research practices to the editorial office, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of scientific dissemination.
  

Reviewers are reminded to maintain transparency and ethical responsibility throughout the review process. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help maintain the high standards of scientific publishing and uphold the core values of the JBCS. We appreciate your commitment to providing prompt and insightful evaluations that support the scientific community and foster ethical research practices.

3. Co-reviewers role
As scientists and referees, we understand that reviewers may sometimes rely on co-reviewers to support the peer review process, whether they are postdoctoral researchers, colleagues, or other experts capable of providing valuable insights. This collaborative effort ensures that the final assessment of a manuscript is both thorough and fair, reflecting a breadth of expertise that a single reviewer may not always encompass.

We also acknowledge that the role of co-reviewers is as significant as that of primary reviewers. Their contributions often shape the depth and clarity of the final feedback, enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. Co-reviewers must, therefore, adhere to the same ethical guidelines, confidentiality obligations, and conflict-of-interest policies as primary reviewers. By following these principles, co-reviewers uphold the integrity of the peer review process, ensuring that all assessments and recommendations are objective and respectful of the authors' work.

4. Acknowledgment of Reviewers

We deeply appreciate the time, expertise, and dedication you bring to the peer-review process. Your thoughtful and constructive feedback plays a crucial role in upholding the scientific rigor and integrity of our publications. By contributing your expertise, you not only enhance the quality of individual manuscripts but also support the advancement of knowledge within the broader scientific community.

Your efforts are integral to the success of the JBCS. We extend our sincere gratitude for your invaluable contributions, which drive research excellence and innovation forward.