Peer Review Process and Evaluation Policy

The Journal of Advanced Microbiology follows a rigorous, transparent, fair, and timely peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research in microbiology and allied disciplines. The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, scientific accuracy, ethical publishing, and scholarly transparency throughout the editorial and publication process.

The journal adopts an anonymous peer review system in which the identities of reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts are evaluated solely based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the scope of the journal. For selected article categories such as editorials, invited commentaries, or special communications, the review process may vary at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the editorial office. During this stage, manuscripts are assessed for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality and novelty, scientific quality, compliance with author guidelines, ethical approvals and declarations, language quality, formatting standards, and completeness of submission files. Manuscripts may also be checked for plagiarism and similarity before being sent for external review. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s minimum standards may be returned to authors for technical revision or rejected without external review, commonly referred to as a desk rejection.

To maintain academic integrity, all submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate, Turnitin, or DrillBit. In general, a similarity index below 27% is considered acceptable, provided that no single source contributes disproportionately to the similarity score. Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, falsification, image manipulation, or other unethical practices will be rejected and may be handled according to internationally recognized publication ethics guidelines.

Each manuscript considered suitable for peer review is typically evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, subject specialization, previous reviewing experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial board may invite additional reviewers whenever necessary to ensure a balanced and fair evaluation.

Reviewers are requested to critically evaluate manuscripts for originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigour, relevance to microbiology and related disciplines, data accuracy, statistical analysis, ethical compliance, clarity of writing, quality of figures and tables, adequacy of references, validity of conclusions, and overall scientific significance. Reviewers provide confidential comments to the editor, constructive feedback to the authors, and a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Based on reviewer comments and editorial assessment, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions: accept without revision, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. The final publication decision always rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors submitting revised manuscripts are expected to provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments along with a revised and clearly marked version of the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or assessed directly by the handling editor in the case of minor revisions. Failure to submit revisions within the specified time may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.

The journal aims to maintain an efficient and timely review process. Initial editorial screening is generally completed within 3–7 days, reviewer invitation and assignment within 5–10 days, peer review within 2–4 weeks, and the first editorial decision within 3–6 weeks. Final acceptance after revision is typically completed within 1–3 weeks. Fast-track review options may be available for high-priority submissions or special issues.

All reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, distribute, or use unpublished data for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and provide objective, unbiased, and constructive evaluations.

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the review or publication process. Individuals with significant competing interests will not participate in the editorial evaluation of the manuscript.

The journal follows ethical standards and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and World Association of Medical Editors. Cases involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, image manipulation, or other forms of publication misconduct are handled according to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

To promote transparency and scholarly accountability, the journal may introduce optional open peer review features in the future, including publication of reviewer reports, reviewer recognition, and voluntary disclosure of reviewer identities with reviewer consent.

The journal also recognizes the growing role of artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished data to public AI platforms or generative AI tools without explicit permission from the journal. AI-assisted tools may be used only for limited purposes such as language improvement, grammar checking, or reference organization. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the integrity, confidentiality, and accuracy of their evaluations.

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal accompanied by scientific justification, clarification, and supporting evidence. Appeals are evaluated independently by the editorial board, and the final decision of the journal shall be considered binding.

The journal also encourages post-publication scientific discussion and may publish corrections, expressions of concern, commentary letters, or retractions whenever necessary to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the scientific record.

As part of its commitment to modern scholarly publishing, the journal may additionally incorporate reviewer recognition certificates, ORCID integration for reviewers, Publons or Web of Science reviewer recognition, statistical review for clinical or data-intensive studies, image integrity screening, data availability verification, and registered reports as future enhancements to the peer review system.