Information for Reviewers

On this page:
Peer Review Process and Timeline

All manuscripts submitted to BAMM undergo a two-stage check before peer review:

  1. Technical Pre-check – The Managing Editor ensures the submission meets basic requirements (format, ethical approval, data availability).
  2. Editorial Pre-check – An Academic Editor evaluates scope, novelty, and suitability. The editor may reject, request pre-review revisions, or proceed to peer review.

If peer review proceeds, the Editorial Office coordinates review with at least two independent experts. Authors may be asked to revise their work, and in some cases a second review round will follow. The final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) rests with the handling Academic Editor, often in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board.

Accepted papers are professionally copy-edited and published open access. Reviewer reports (as shared with the author) may be made publicly available with the final article, in line with BAMM’s commitment to transparent peer review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of BAMM. We ask that you:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
  • Focus on scientific contribution, clarity, and rigor rather than minor language or style issues (unless they affect meaning).
  • Submit reviews within the requested two-week timeframe (extensions can be arranged).
  • Suggest qualified alternative reviewers if you are unavailable.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest at the earliest opportunity.

We also encourage experienced reviewers to involve early-career researchers or trainees in the review process as a learning opportunity, provided confidentiality is respected and their involvement is declared to the Editorial Office.

Conflicts of Interest

To safeguard impartiality, reviewers must declare any conflicts that could influence their judgment, including:

  • Employment or institutional overlap with authors.
  • Recent collaborations, co-authorship, or joint grants (within 3 years).
  • Personal or professional relationships (positive or negative).
  • Financial or non-financial stakes in the paper’s outcomes.

If you are unsure whether a circumstance constitutes a conflict, please notify the Editorial Office. Declaring such information does not automatically exclude you from review; the Editor will decide case by case.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, or use any part of the submission outside the scope of peer review.

Reviewer comments will be anonymized unless you choose to sign your review. BAMM may publish reviewer comments alongside the final article for transparency, but only after removing identifying details if anonymity is preferred

Preparing Your Review

When assessing a manuscript, please consider:

  • Scope and Fit – Does the work align with BAMM’s focus on bridging biology and molecular medicine?
  • Scientific Rigor – Are the study design, methods, controls, and analyses appropriate and reproducible?
  • Results and Data – Are findings clearly presented, valid, and adequately supported?
  • Interpretation – Are conclusions justified by data? Have limitations been acknowledged?
  • Contribution – Does the work add originality, relevance, or translational value to the field?
Suggested Review Structure
  1. Overall Evaluation – Brief summary of the work and its main contributions.
  2. Main Comments – 3–5 substantive points on content, clarity, or rigor.
  3. Section-Specific Feedback – Optional detailed notes on individual sections.
  4. Minor Comments – Stylistic, formatting, or reference suggestions.
  5. Confidential Comments to the Editor – Private notes on novelty, significance, or concerns about integrity.

Final recommendations may include:

  • Accept as is
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Second review round recommended
  • Reject (with or without resubmission option)
Reviewer Declarations

By agreeing to review, you confirm that:

  • You have disclosed any potential conflicts of interest.
  • You will keep the manuscript confidential.
  • Your comments will be given in good faith and based on your expertise.
  • You consent to the possible publication of your anonymized review alongside the article.

Thank you for supporting Biology & Molecular Medicine. Your expertise and constructive input help ensure the integrity and advancement of cross-disciplinary biomedical science