Peer Review Process
At Bio-protocol, we are committed to the highest quality of peer review possible. The primary purpose of peer review at Bio-protocol is to assess whether the protocol is likely to be able to work as claimed, and is described in sufficient detail and clarity to be executed and reproduced. Reviewers do not assess novelty or significance. We collaborate with over 1000 active
reviewers that have been carefully selected based on their academic achievements and technical and scientific expertise. The Associate Editor who recommended the protocol will oversee peer review and will nominate at least 2 external peer reviewers from (and beyond) our
Peer Review Board based on their expertise, and will also review the protocol. The Associate Editor is responsible for drafting an editorial decision letter that clearly guides authors on the revisions that would be necessary for the protocol to be suitable for publication, and submitting that letter to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval. We disclose the names of reviewers of each protocol only upon their permission. Our peer review pipeline is described below:
- Associate Editor assigns reviewers and oversees peer review (4 weeks), drafting the decision letter and submitting it to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Editor-in-Chief approves or modifies the decision, alerting the executive editor charged with communicating decisions to the authors.
- The executive editor communicates the decision with authors and is available to address any questions.
- Authors address comments from the peer reviewers and editors (2 weeks).
- Reviewers and editors evaluate author revisions and determine whether the revised version is acceptable as is or requires further revision (10 days).
- If further revision is required for the protocol to be accepted, the protocol will go through a final round of review prior to a decision to accept or reject the protocol.