Peer Review Processes

Peer review is central to the publishing process and is fundamental in maintaining the published literature's integrity and advancing discovery. Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of Research of Experimental Biology (REB) will be processed for review.

Generally, two reviewers with the Double-Blind Peer Review Process will evaluate each manuscript based on the terms of the scope, scientific rigor of the experimental design, data adequacy, conclusions' validity, importance, originality, adequacy of the literature citations, clarity of the presentation, and format. Manuscripts will be given a quality (priority) ranking by each reviewer. Only manuscripts with high-priority rankings will be accepted, even though they may have been classed as generally acceptable. If reviewers differ significantly in their opinions, the decision will be based on the priority rankings and/or the opinion of an additional reviewer (arbiter). Usually, revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers and the authors' responses.

Articles may be accepted without revision, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejected. The results of reviewed articles by reviewers will be notified to the author via email. The author can revise his article based on the reviewers' suggestions (and the editor's) six weeks after the email notification.

Here you may find a sample model of the open peer review process in REB.

Expedited peer review

The Editors of REB recognize that scientifically sound, high-quality manuscripts are often turned away from broad-scope "high-impact" journals based on the issue of "general interest." As a specialist journal, REB will consider rapid publication of such manuscripts if they are submitted with the original peer reviewer reports, rejection letter, and a brief rebuttal of the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer guidelines

REB is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. Once the editor has assessed your paper's suitability, it will be double-blind peer-reviewed by independent peers within the relevant field. We believe in the integrity of peer review with every journal we publish ascribing to the following statement:

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review based on initial editor screening, anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees, and consequent revision by article authors when required.

We sincerely thank reviewers who give their time to peer-review articles submitted to REB. Rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of high-quality academic publishing.

Invitation to Review

At least two experts review manuscripts submitted to REB. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's quality and to recommend to the external editor whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

Accept or decline invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract.
Request an extension if more time is required to compose a report.

As part of the assessments, reviewers will be asked:

To rate the originality, significance, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, interest to the readers, overall merit, and Indonesian language of the manuscript;
To provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
To provide a detailed, constructive review report;

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers should keep the manuscript's content, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.
REB operates a double-blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

Call For Reviewer

We are happy to welcome experts willing to build and advance the REB. We call you to be the Editorial Board or Reviewer here. Your performance will be highly appreciated. Please feel free to fill out this form to join us.

Reviewers responsibilities

The reviewer REB is responsible for both the author and the editor regarding the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

Peer reviewer responsibilities toward the author

Providing written, unbiased feedback on time on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work
the reviewers' comments should be clear, relevant to the subject, and accurate, which creates interest in the authors.
Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.
The review process should be confidentially maintained.

Peer reviewer responsibilities toward the editor

We notify the editor immediately if unable to review on time and provide the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work
Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it, and giving decisions based on rating
Provide an apparent and levelheaded reason for giving decisions based on common ethics
Personal & Financial conflicts should be alerted.
Stave off direct contact with the author without the editor's permission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: - Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. Manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the procedure is commenced
Constructive Evaluation: - Decisions and judgments should be constructive that provide legible insight to the author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process.
Competence: -The interview with passable expertise will be able to finish the review. People needing more expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.
Impartiality and Integrity: - Reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, and the scope of the REB instead of on the financial, racial, or ethnic origin of the authors.
Timeliness and Responsiveness: - Reviewer should be responsible for completing the review within the appropriate time and take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the REB.