All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Applied Biology & Biotechnology first undergo an initial editorial and technical screening. Scholarly manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for double-anonymous (also referred to as double-blind) peer review. In this model, reviewers and the authors do not know each other's identities. This process is intended to promote impartial evaluation and reduce the potential for bias during peer review. All manuscripts and related peer-review materials are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Initial Evaluation/Technical Review

An initial editorial and technical screening involves assessment of scope, originality, ethical compliance, presentation quality, language clarity, methodological soundness, plagiarism/similarity concerns, reference accuracy, and compliance with the journal’s author guidelines. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, insufficiently original, scientifically or ethically flawed, poorly prepared, or not compliant with journal requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria and pass the initial evaluation/technical review will be sent to at least two independent experts for review.

Peer-review

• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Research articles, review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, mini-reviews, short communications, case reports, case series, methods articles, technical notes, brief reports, perspectives or opinion articles containing substantive scholarly analysis, and other scholarly articles considered for publication are normally reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Supplementary material, where submitted and relevant, is made available to reviewers and considered as part of the review process.
• The editor(s) may seek additional review reports beyond the minimum of two, if required. The reports of all reviewers will be considered when making a decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript. However, the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for ensuring that the decision is made in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and ethical guidelines.
• The Editor-in-Chief may seek advice from one or more non-conflicted advisory board members before making the final decision.
• Associate Editors, Review Editors, and Editorial Board members provide editorial and administrative support to help maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
• In accordance with COPE and ICMJE guidance on editorial conflicts of interest, editors must not handle, influence, or make decisions on manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict of interest. If an editor has a conflict, including cases where the editor is an author of a manuscript submitted to the journal, the submission will be assigned to an independent member of the Editorial Board or to an independent guest editor. The conflicted editor will be excluded from reviewer selection, editorial discussion, and the final decision-making process.
• Special issue submissions undergo the same editorial screening and double-anonymous external peer-review process as regular submissions. Guest Editors may recommend reviewers and provide editorial recommendations, but the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
• Editorials, correspondence/Letters to the Editor, corrigenda, announcements, obituaries, news items, and similar non-research content may undergo editorial review only, rather than external peer review. However, any submission in these categories that presents original data, new research findings or major new scientific conclusions may be sent for external peer review at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Manuscripts and related peer-review materials are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not upload, share, or process submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, figures, tables, data, or supplementary files using generative AI tools or other external platforms unless explicitly permitted by the journal and confidentiality, data security, and copyright protection are assured. Generative AI tools must not replace independent editorial or reviewer judgment, and all editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal’s editors.

Author's suggestion for the reviewer

To maintain the independence and integrity of the peer-review process, this journal does not accept author-suggested reviewers. Reviewer selection is handled independently by the editors based on subject expertise, reviewer availability, absence of conflicts of interest, and suitability for the manuscript under consideration. Authors may, however, identify individuals, who they believe should be excluded from reviewing their manuscript, provided that clear and reasonable justification is given. The final decision on reviewer selection rests solely with the journal’s editors.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal a negative editorial decision by submitting clear scientific justification, including specific reasons for disagreeing with the decision and, where applicable, responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek further assessment from an additional independent reviewer, a non-conflicted Editorial Board member, or another qualified expert. The final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering the appeal, previous reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and any additional recommendations received.

Complaints about the journal’s editorial process, peer-review handling, publication ethics, or editorial conduct should be submitted to the journal with relevant details and supporting evidence. Complaints will be reviewed objectively and handled in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and applicable publication-ethics guidance.