Instructions for Reviewers

The editors of the Asian-Australasian Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology (AAJBB) highly appreciate the indispensable role of reviewers in safeguarding the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Peer review serves as the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that published articles meet established standards of originality, methodological rigor, ethical responsibility, and meaningful contribution to bioscience and biotechnology. By accepting an invitation to review, experts actively support the advancement of research and innovation across diverse areas of biological and biotechnological sciences.

Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluation within three weeks of accepting the review invitation. Timely submission of review reports is essential for maintaining an efficient editorial workflow and preventing unnecessary delays for authors. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, requires additional time, or wishes to decline the invitation, prompt communication with the editorial office of the AAJBB at [email protected] or [email protected], so that alternative arrangements can be made. All correspondence regarding the manuscript must remain confidential and should be conducted directly through the journal’s official editorial communication channels.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must be treated accordingly. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss any part of the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editors. The content of the manuscript, including data, results, and concepts, must not be used for personal research advancement or professional benefit prior to publication.

If reviewers detect potential ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, or unethical research involving humans, animals, or the environment—they should immediately inform the editor with clear, detailed, and evidence-based comments.

Scope and Relevance

Before undertaking a comprehensive review, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s stated Aims and Scope. If the subject matter falls outside their area of expertise or beyond the scope of AAJBB, reviewers are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly to facilitate reassignment to a more suitable expert.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to provide a thorough, objective, and balanced assessment of the manuscript, considering the following aspects:

Ethical Compliance: Confirmation that appropriate ethical approvals, consent procedures, and regulatory requirements have been fulfilled.
Scientific Soundness: Evaluation of the validity, clarity, and reliability of the research design and methodology.
Originality and Significance: Assessment of the novelty of the study and its contribution to bioscience and biotechnology.
Study Design and Methods: Determination of whether experimental procedures, sampling strategies, controls, and analytical techniques are appropriate and sufficiently described.
Statistical Analysis: Verification that statistical methods are correctly applied and interpreted.
Data Presentation: Assessment of the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
Interpretation and Conclusions: Evaluation of whether conclusions are logically supported by the results presented.
Literature and Citations: Determination of whether references are relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited.
Structure and Clarity: Review of the organization, coherence, technical writing quality, and clarity of English language.
Length and Focus: Consideration of whether the manuscript is concise and proportionate to its scientific content.

Constructive and Professional Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to maintain a fair, objective, and constructive approach throughout the evaluation process. Comments should be specific, clearly articulated, and preferably numbered to facilitate efficient revision by authors and assessment by editors. The purpose of peer review is to enhance the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Criticism should be expressed professionally and supported by scientific reasoning. Personal remarks, inappropriate language, or subjective opinions unrelated to the manuscript’s scholarly merit must be avoided. When recommending revisions, reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major concerns (affecting scientific validity or interpretation) and minor issues (such as language corrections or formatting improvements).

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise impartial judgment. Such conflicts may include financial relationships, institutional affiliations, collaborative partnerships, or personal relationships with the authors. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation in the interest of maintaining transparency and fairness.

Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers are required to submit their evaluation through the journal’s online review report submission system. The system provides separate sections for comments to the authors and confidential remarks to the editor. Comments intended for the authors should focus on constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript’s scientific quality, clarity, and presentation. These comments should not contain explicit statements regarding acceptance or rejection. Publication recommendations (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) must be indicated only within the confidential section accessible exclusively to the editorial team. The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial board member, who will carefully consider the reviewers’ reports and the overall editorial assessment before reaching a conclusion.