Active editorial responsibility
For Editors
JBBS editors are accountable for fair, confidential and evidence-based manuscript handling. Editorial service is by invitation and verification; it does not confer an advantage in peer review or publication.
Core duties
- Accept only assignments you can assess impartially.
- Select independent reviewers for subject and method expertise.
- Protect confidential material and reviewer identity.
- Escalate integrity concerns through the authorized workflow.
On this page
Appointment and accountability
Editors are invited only after the journal verifies current affiliation, ORCID where available, publication record, subject and methodological expertise, conflicts and capacity. Service is an active responsibility, not an honorary title. Editors must keep their profile and competing-interest information current and decline work they cannot assess impartially or promptly.
When an assignment arrives
- Confirm expertiseCheck that the manuscript’s subject and methods are within your competence.
- Disclose conflictsReport actual and reasonably perceived personal, institutional, financial, collaborative or competitive interests.
- Accept or declineRespond through the authorized manuscript workflow. Do not share files before accepting.
- Escalate earlyContact the editorial office when scope, identity, confidentiality or integrity signals require support.
Initial assessment
Assess fit against Aims & Scope, article type, basic completeness and the evidence needed for a defensible editorial process.
- Ethical approvals, consent, privacy and clinical registration where applicable.
- Animal welfare, biosafety, biosecurity and dual-use risks.
- Cell-line identity, contamination controls and reagent, strain or construct provenance.
- Data, materials and code availability; statistical and reporting transparency.
- Image and figure integrity, text overlap and possible duplicate publication.
A similarity report is evidence for assessment, not an automatic decision.
Reviewer selection and review management
Choose independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise across biotechnology, biomedical science, computational, engineering and translational research. Avoid reviewers from the same institution, recent collaborators, supervisors, close competitors or anyone with a personal or financial conflict. Do not select solely for speed or favorable views. Assess reports for evidence, civility, citation coercion, bias and completeness, and seek another assessment when the existing reports cannot support a defensible decision.
When an author requests double-blind review, protect author identity in reviewer communications and files. If identifying information remains, pause the invitation and ask the editorial office to provide appropriately anonymized materials.
Conflicts, recusal and confidentiality
Editors must recuse from manuscripts they authored, from close collaborators or competitors, from their institution, or where a personal, financial or intellectual interest could reasonably affect judgment. The editorial office reassigns the manuscript. Payment, membership, advertising, sponsorship, waiver status and institutional or geographic origin must never influence review or acceptance.
Treat manuscripts, reviews, correspondence and unpublished data as confidential. Do not share them outside the authorized workflow or upload any part to a public or unauthorized generative-AI, translation, summarization or analysis service.
Decisions and communication
Base recommendations and decisions on scope, scientific soundness, ethics, transparency and the evidence in the reviews. Explain the principal reasons, distinguish essential revisions from optional advice, reject coercive citation requests and avoid requiring experiments unrelated to the central claim. Reviewer recommendations advise the responsible editor; do not promise acceptance or invite payment before a final acceptance decision.
Integrity, appeals and post-publication matters
Escalate suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated images, undisclosed conflicts, unsafe research or reviewer misconduct without investigating privately. Preserve evidence and confidentiality. Appeals should be reviewed by an editor not responsible for the original decision where practicable. Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern follow the Editorial Policies.
Use the shared policy framework
Editorial Policies define the requirements editors must apply consistently across regular and Special Issue manuscripts.
Contact the editorial office through the authorized manuscript record for assignment, conflict, confidentiality, ethics, integrity, reviewer or appeal questions.