Peer Review Process
Initial Manuscript Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to Human Biology Journal undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal. This assessment considers the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scientific quality, clarity of presentation, and compliance with submission requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be returned to the authors or declined without external peer review.
Editorial Evaluation and Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment may be assigned to an editor for further evaluation. The editor identifies suitable independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise to assess the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, and contribution to the field of human biology.
Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and ability to provide an objective assessment. The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest in the selection and assignment of reviewers.
Peer Review
Human Biology Journal uses a [double-blind/single-blind] peer review process. During peer review, reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide comments on its strengths, limitations, scientific validity, interpretation of results, and suitability for publication.
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. They may also identify issues requiring clarification, additional analysis, methodological explanation, or improvements in presentation. Authors are expected to address reviewers’ comments carefully and provide a point-by-point response when submitting a revised manuscript.
Editorial Decision
The final decision regarding publication rests with the editor, taking into consideration the reviewers’ recommendations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and its relevance to the journal.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without further substantive revision.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes or clarifications before a final decision can be made.
- Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
- Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.
The journal may seek additional reviewer assessments when necessary to support an informed editorial decision.
Revision and Reassessment
When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, together with a response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Any comments that cannot be fully addressed should be explained with appropriate scientific justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Further revision may be requested when necessary.
Confidentiality and Ethical Standards
The journal expects editors and reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and to treat all submissions with impartiality and professionalism. Manuscripts under review must not be used for personal advantage or shared with unauthorized individuals.
Reviewers are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct.
Publication
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the editorial preparation and production stages. These may include language and formatting checks, typesetting, and preparation of page proofs. Authors may be asked to review and approve the proofs before the article is published.
The publication process is completed after the necessary editorial and production requirements have been fulfilled.
Review Timeline
The time required for peer review depends on the subject area, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of any revisions. The journal seeks to conduct the review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining appropriate standards of scientific quality and editorial integrity.
