Journal of Integrative and Biomedical Science Reports

Instructions for Editors

1. Editorial Mission, Responsibilities, and Principles
Editors serve as the scientific and ethical guardians of journal, ensuring all submissions receive fair, rigorous, and timely evaluation. Their decisions directly influence the journal credibility, accessibility, and long-term reputation.
1.1 Mission Alignment
The journal prioritizes research that connects fundamental biomedical findings with translational or clinical applications. Editors should favor manuscripts offering novel mechanisms, tools, methodologies, or therapeutic insights with measurable biomedical relevance. Submissions lacking clear impact may be returned with an explanatory decision.
1.2 Editorial Conduct and Integrity
Editors must make decisions independently of publisher and free from:
® Author identity, nationality, institution, or seniority
® Political, commercial, or ideological influence
® Personal or professional relationships
All decisions must be evidence-based and internally documented for transparency.

2. Manuscript Intake, Screening, and Eligibility
This stage ensures that only scientifically sound, ethically compliant manuscripts proceed to peer review.
2.1 Scope, Novelty, and Scientific Merit
Editors should determine whether the manuscript:
® Addresses a meaningful biomedical question
® Advances mechanistic understanding or clinical translation
® Provides substantive improvement over existing literature
® Introduces innovative methods, analyses, or conceptual approaches
Papers offering only incremental findings or lacking broader significance may be desk-rejected with constructive guidance.
2.2 Structural and Technical Completeness
Editors must verify the presence of all required sections:
® Title, abstract, keywords
® Introduction with rationale and hypotheses
® Reproducible methods
® Results with clearly labeled figures/tables
® Discussion and conclusion
® CRediT author contributions
® Funding, conflict of interest, and ethics statements
® Data availability
® Supplementary materials, where applicable
Figures must meet quality standards; statistical methods must be fully described. Incomplete manuscripts should be returned to authors before review.
2.3 Plagiarism, Overlap, and Duplicate Submission
Editors should assess similarity reports holistically, considering:
® Acceptable overlap in methods
® Proper citation of reused text
® Block copying or paraphrased plagiarism
Unintentional overlap may warrant revision; extensive or deliberate plagiarism results in rejection. Editors must also check for:
® Previously published or unacknowledged reused data
® Simultaneous submissions
® “Salami slicing” of a single study into multiple papers
® Preprints (allowed if cited)
2.4 AI-Generated Content
Editors must ensure authors follow journal AI-use policy.
Allowed with disclosure:
® Grammar and language editing
® Code formatting
® Non-interpretive text generation
® Exploratory data outputs where authors perform all interpretation
Prohibited:
® AI-generated experimental data, images, or patient information
® AI-derived literature reviews presented as original
® Fabricated citations
® AI-written manuscripts without human oversight
® Undisclosed AI involvement in analysis or interpretation
2.5 Third-Party Content and Permissions
Editors must confirm:
® Proper permission for reproduced figures, tables, questionnaires, or algorithms
® Correct attribution of Creative Commons content
® Replacement of unlicensed material before review
All permissions should be archived for legal and indexing compliance.

3. Reviewer Selection and Management
Quality peer review depends on qualified, diverse, and ethical reviewers.
3.1 Reviewer Expertise
Editors should choose reviewers based on:
® Recent relevant publications
® Methodological competence
® Prior record of constructive, timely reviews
Avoid over-reliance on a limited reviewer pool.
3.2 Diversity and Ethical Standards
Editors should aim for:
® Geographic and institutional diversity
® Inclusion of early-career reviewers where appropriate
® Avoidance of clustering reviewers from the same institution
Reviewers must adhere to confidentiality and ethical guidelines.
3.3 Reviewer Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must not have:
® Recent collaborations with authors
® Shared institutional affiliations
® Competitive or commercial interests
® Personal biases affecting judgment
Any emerging conflict of interest requires reassignment.
3.4 Communication and Monitoring
Editors must provide reviewers with:
® Manuscript type and expected contribution
® Clear review instructions
® Deadlines (typically 2–4 weeks)
Unresponsive reviewers may be replaced.

4. Oversight of the Peer Review Process
4.1 Reviewer Expectations
Editors must ensure that reviews assess:
® Originality and scientific relevance
® Methodological rigor and reproducibility
®  Ethical approval for human/animal studies
® Statistical soundness
® Data and figure integrity
® Whether conclusions are supported by results
® Clarity and coherence of writing
Reviews must remain respectful and unbiased.
4.2 Managing Conflicting Reviews
When reviewers disagree, editors should:
® Evaluate the strength of arguments
® Seek additional expert review if needed
® Consult senior editors when necessary
® Provide authors with a balanced decision letter
Final decisions are based on scientific merit, not majority opinion.
4.3 Confidentiality and Data Protection
Editors must enforce:
® Strict confidentiality of manuscripts
® Protection of reviewer identities (double-blind)
® Prohibition on using unpublished data for personal gain
Violations can result in reviewer removal or institutional reporting.

5. Editorial Decisions and Author Guidance
5.1 Decision Types
® Accept — all issues resolved
® Minor Revision — small clarifications or edits
® Major Revision — substantial conceptual or methodological changes
® Revise and Resubmit — major restructuring needed
® Reject with Invitation to Resubmit — promising concept but insufficient execution
® Reject — fundamental flaws or lack of novelty
5.2 Quality of Decision Letters
Decision letters must:
® Summarize key strengths and limitations
® Distinguish essential from optional revisions
® Address reviewer comments systematically
® Provide guidance for preparing the response to reviewers

6. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts
Editors must determine whether revisions:
® Address reviewer concerns in full
® Strengthen scientific rigor
® Resolve methodological or interpretive issues
Major updates may require re-review.

7. Research Ethics and Misconduct Oversight
7.1 Human Research
Editors must verify:
® IRB approval and protocol numbers
® Informed consent procedures
® Prospective clinical trial registration
® Adequate protection of patient confidentiality
7.2 Animal Research
Editors must confirm:
® IACUC or equivalent approval
® Humane procedures and justification for animal use
7.3 Data and Image Integrity
Editors should check for:
® Image duplication or manipulation
® Irregular data patterns
® Statistical inconsistencies
Authors may be required to supply raw data.
7.4 Authorship Verification
Editors must ensure:
® Accurate assignment of contributions
® Author approval of the final manuscript
® Accountability for the integrity of the work
Disputes follow COPE guidelines.

8. Data Transparency and Open Science
Editors enforce:
® Mandatory data availability statements
® Use of recognized repositories
® Clear reporting of analyses, code, and workflows
® Reproducibility documentation
Raw data may be required for complex figures.

9. Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Editors must recuse themselves when:
® They are authors, collaborators, or institutional affiliates
® They have financial or personal relationships with authors
The Editor-in-Chief will appoint a replacement editor.

10. Copyright, Licensing, and Permissions
Editors must ensure:
® Correct application of Creative Commons or journal licenses
® Completion of publishing agreements
® Documentation of permissions for third-party content
® Accurate communication of reuse rights
Missing permissions delay publication.

11. Post-Acceptance and Production
Editors verify:
® Metadata accuracy (names, affiliations, ORCID IDs)
® Completeness of ethical and funding disclosures
® Final figure/table quality
® Integrity of supplementary files
Only complete and compliant manuscripts move to production.

12. Post-Publication Responsibilities
12.1 Corrections
Minor errors not affecting conclusions may be corrected.
12.2 Expressions of Concern
Issued when credible issues arise but investigations are pending.
12.3 Retractions
Required for falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, major ethical breaches, or invalidating errors.
Retraction notices remain accessible and indexed.

13. Indexing Readiness and Compliance
13.1 Article-Level Transparency
Editors must ensure each article contains:
® Author metadata
® DOIs
® Funding and ethical disclosures
® Conflict of interest statements
® Data availability
® Correct article classification
13.2 Journal-Level Standards
Editors help maintain:
® Public editorial board information
® Clear peer-review and ethics policies
® Plagiarism and AI-use policies
® Archiving and open-access statements
13.3 Quality Indicators
Editors monitor:
® Review timelines
® Acceptance rates
® Citation patterns
® Geographic and institutional diversity

14. Continuous Improvement
Editors should engage in:
® Annual training on peer review, ethics, and data integrity
® Updating reviewer databases
® Identifying emerging fields for special issues
Promoting methodological rigor and open science