Editors Guidelines
JBI editors uphold scientific rigor, ethical oversight, and timely decision making for biomaterials research.
Role Of The Editor
Editors act as stewards of the peer review process. They assess scope fit, select expert reviewers, and provide clear decisions based on scientific merit. Editors are expected to maintain impartiality and confidentiality at every stage.
When appropriate, editors may suggest improvements to reporting quality or study presentation to meet JBI standards.
Core Responsibilities
Scope Assessment
Confirm alignment with biomaterials science, translational relevance, and journal standards.
Reviewer Selection
Invite qualified reviewers with relevant technical and clinical expertise.
Decision Quality
Provide balanced decisions that reflect reviewer feedback and editorial judgment.
Decision Criteria
Editors should evaluate novelty, methodological rigor, and translational relevance. Manuscripts must include clear material characterization, appropriate controls, and sufficient data to support conclusions. Studies that lack reproducibility, ethical approvals, or adequate reporting should not proceed to acceptance.
When reviews conflict, editors should weigh technical evidence, seek additional expert input if needed, and communicate a clear decision rationale to the authors.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are independent of APC status, author affiliation, or funding source. This ensures that scientific merit remains the only acceptance criterion.
Handling Revisions
Editors should assess revision responses for completeness and clarity. A point by point response letter is required, and all changes must be reflected in the revised manuscript.
If additional reviewer input is required, editors may invite the original reviewers or new experts to confirm that concerns have been addressed.
Ethics And Confidentiality
Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when appropriate. Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential and may not be shared or used for personal advantage. Suspected misconduct should be escalated to the editorial office.
Communication Standards
Editors should communicate decisions clearly and respectfully, highlighting essential revisions and scientific concerns. Constructive guidance improves manuscript quality and supports a fair review experience for authors.
Decision letters should summarize the key reasons for acceptance, revision, or rejection. Avoid ambiguous language and ensure that authors understand the next required steps.
Timeliness
Prompt handling helps authors and reviewers plan effectively. Editors are encouraged to maintain steady progress through review, revision, and final decision steps.
If delays arise, notify the editorial office so that alternative reviewers can be invited.
Timely handling improves author satisfaction and journal quality.
Support
For editorial questions or workflow support, contact [email protected].
Templates and decision guidance are available on request.
