Editorial Operations

On this page:
1. Open Access

Open Access means readers can accessed all published material for free, without any charges or subscription fees. All content of Biology and Molecular Medicine is published under a Creative Commons open access license.

2. Funding

Biology and Molecular Medicine is supported by the volunteer efforts of its staff and members. We plan to set up a way for anonymous donations to be made to help support the journals operation in the future.

3. Manuscript Lifecycle
3.1 Editor Approval

Once submitted a manuscript is reviewed by the Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief will oversee the entire editorial process for a manuscript including initial decision and actions for accepting progression to peer review, sending out reviewer invitations, coordinating peer review, managing correspondence between reviewers and authors while maintaining dual anonymity, English editing, proofreading and accepting the final manuscript, and all decisions therein. Copyediting is performed by a technical staff.

After reviewing a manuscript, the Editor in Chief can conduct multiple actions:

  1. Reject for publication
  2. Reject with encouragement to resubmit pending English revisions
  3. Reject with encouragement to resubmit pending improvement based on Editor’s critique
  4. Accept for progression to peer review
3.2 Peer Review

Review is double anonymized.

3.2.1 Suitable Reviewers

Invitations to serve as a peer reviewer will be sent out to the journals members and connects in the scientific community. Peer reviewers will preferably have a doctorate but must at minimum have an undergraduate degree in the sciences and demonstrated prior research experience or publications related to the specific topic of the paper. Some measures to ensure anonymity are taken. The editor must verify the reviewers and the author are not part of the same institution or currently working on any joint research, business or other venture together; and are not relatives. Cases where a reviewer and author are part of the same institutional network, such as a hospital system or partnered universities must be assessed by the Editor.

  • Example 1: The author holds a position at Mt. Sinai Hospital while the potential reviewer holds a position at Memorial Sloan Kettering Institute, two distinct institutions. However, the author and potential reviewer are associated with laboratories that are currently participating in a joint research endeavor, or collaboration, between the two universities. This potential reviewer will not be allowed to review.
  • Example 2: The author is a faculty at Hofstra University and the potential reviewer is employed by Lenux Hill Hospital. Lenux Hill Hospital serves as the clinical campus of the Zucker School of Medicine, a program jointly operated by Hofstra University and Northwell Health. The evident partnership between these institutions would exclude this potential reviewer. 
3.2.2 Submissions by Editors

In a case where the Editor in Chief may not be optimal to serve their duty such as if a publication is submitted by someone from their own institution, if they have played a role in soliciting a manuscript, if they have contributed to the research in any manner, or if they are an author; the full duties of Editor in Chief with regard to the process of publishing that manuscript will be conducted by an Editorial Board member.

3.3 Reviewer Feedback

Reviewers do not interact with other reviewers. Reviewers communicate with authors through rounds of editing in which the authors are provided reviewer feedback and given a specific amount of time to make relevant corrections/improvements to the manuscript. Additionally, the author may make a comment or ask a question regarding a reviewer’s feedback, and the reviewer can choose to respond in a free form manner, but this is not a requirement. The process of receiving reviewer feedback and the author updating then resubmitting the manuscript can occur numerous times. If an author fails to complete revisions in a timely manner the manuscript can be rejected. If the reviewers feel insignificant effort is put into revisions repeatedly though multiple rounds of review, they may contact the Editor who will decide if the review can continue, or the manuscript will be rejected. Additionally, the manuscript may be rejected by the editor during the review process if reviewers indicate that some change to the manuscript has violated other ethical standards of the journal. In all cases of manuscripts failing to pass peer review; the manuscript may be resubmitted as a new submission to the journal and will be considered.

4. Extensions

Extensions for submitting the updated manuscript may be obtained by submitting a request to the editor, who will decide if an extension is appropriate.

5. Availability of Review Material

Reviewer feedback or comments from every round of review will be noted and published in full along with the publication and Reviewer Identities will be disclosed. Original submitted manuscript will also be made available. Author questions to reviewers and reviewer responses may be included with author and reviewer opt in. Editor will be identified.