Peer Review Process and Evaluation Policy

Chem Bio Molecules (CBM) follows a rigorous, fair, transparent, and double-anonymous peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published articles. Each manuscript submitted to the journal is first screened by the Editorial Office for conformity with the journal’s scope, basic scientific standards, ethical requirements, originality, and manuscript preparation guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be returned to the authors or declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to an appropriate Editor or Associate Editor with relevant subject expertise. The Editor evaluates the manuscript and selects independent reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the subject of the work. CBM normally follows a double-anonymous review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to the extent practicable. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically justified assessments and to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, prior peer review experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial office strives to ensure diversity, independence, fairness, and balanced scientific judgment during reviewer selection. Although authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editorial team.

The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript primarily based on its originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, validity of results, clarity of presentation, significance of the findings, relevance to the field, adequacy of data and statistical analysis, appropriate interpretation of results, ethical compliance, and completeness of references. For interdisciplinary manuscripts, reviewers may also consider whether the chemical and biological components of the study are appropriately integrated and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance without revision, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor after careful consideration of reviewer comments, scientific merit, ethical concerns, editorial priorities, and author revisions. In cases where reviewer opinions differ substantially, additional reviewers may be invited or further editorial assessment may be undertaken before a final decision is reached. All editorial decisions are considered final.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer's comment. Revised submissions should clearly indicate all modifications made to the manuscript. In cases involving substantial revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from further consideration.

The journal maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review and editorial evaluation process. Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, or unpublished data to unauthorized individuals. Unpublished information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal research or professional advantage.

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence their objectivity, including financial relationships, institutional affiliations, collaborative associations, personal relationships, or competitive interests. Individuals with significant conflicts of interest are excluded from the review and editorial decision-making process. Authors are likewise required to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and funding sources during manuscript submission.

The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical standards and follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Declaration of Helsinki, and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. The editorial office may request supporting documentation, including ethical approval certificates, patient consent forms, clinical trial registration details, raw data, and data availability statements whenever necessary.

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using appropriate detection software before peer review. Manuscripts containing significant plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed material, image manipulation, fabricated data, or other forms of scientific misconduct may be rejected immediately. Serious ethical violations may additionally result in manuscript retraction, notification of institutional authorities, temporary submission bans, or reporting to relevant regulatory bodies.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification to the Editorial Office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, independent editorial advisors. Decisions reached following the appeal evaluation are considered final. The journal also addresses complaints relating to editorial handling, peer review conduct, publication ethics, and malpractice in a fair, transparent, and confidential manner.

The journal aims to provide efficient and timely editorial processing. Initial editorial screening is generally completed within 3–7 days of submission, while the peer review process typically requires 2–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Revised manuscripts are usually evaluated within 1–3 weeks, and final editorial decisions are generally communicated within 1–2 weeks following completion of peer review.

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, technical editing, proof preparation, author proof correction, and final publication. Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing proofs and responding promptly to editorial queries to ensure accuracy and timely publication.

The journal is committed to preserving the integrity and reliability of the scientific record. Where necessary, the journal may publish corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions in accordance with COPE recommendations and established ethical publishing practices.

CBM strongly supports responsible scientific communication, reproducibility, transparency, ethical research conduct, and integrity in scholarly publishing. The journal encourages high-quality interdisciplinary research that advances innovation in drug discovery and therapeutic sciences while upholding the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the scientific literature.