Peer Review Process
Independent Scientific Evaluation
Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Review, Editorial Responsibility, Confidentiality, and Fair Decision-Making
General Peer-Review Policy
Scholarly manuscripts submitted to Notulae Scientia Biologicae and selected for external evaluation undergo a double-blind peer-review process.
During double-blind review, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. The Editorial Office prepares or verifies the anonymized manuscript used for review.
Peer review is intended to support the assessment and improvement of scientific quality, originality, methodological reliability, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance.
Reviewer reports and recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the handling Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial Responsibility
The Editors-in-Chief have overall responsibility for the journal’s editorial process. Each manuscript is assigned to a handling Editor-in-Chief, who assumes responsibility for the manuscript and makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.
Section Editors and other assigned editors may:
- conduct or assist with preliminary editorial assessment;
- identify and invite suitable reviewers;
- assess reviewer reports and author responses;
- request clarification or revision;
- communicate with authors and reviewers;
- submit reasoned recommendations to the handling Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers provide independent expert assessments. They do not accept, reject, or otherwise decide the publication of manuscripts.
Assessment before External Peer Review
Before external review, each submission undergoes administrative, technical, and preliminary editorial assessment.
The initial evaluation may consider:
Completeness of the submission
Relevance to the journal’s scope
Scientific originality and contribution
Methodological suitability
Ethical and reporting compliance
Overall suitability for external evaluation
Manuscripts may be declined without external review when they are outside the journal’s scope, insufficiently original, methodologically unsuitable, ethically problematic, seriously incomplete, technically inadequate, or presented in a form that prevents proper scientific evaluation.
An assigned editor may recommend rejection following preliminary assessment, but the decision to reject a manuscript before external peer review is made by the handling Editor-in-Chief.
Number of Reviewers
Manuscripts selected for external peer review are normally sent to at least two independent experts.
The journal seeks to obtain two or more substantive review reports whenever possible. However, the editorial process may proceed with a different number of reports when justified by reviewer availability, manuscript specialization, the quality and completeness of the reports received, or other editorial circumstances.
Additional reviewers may be invited when reports are incomplete, contradictory, insufficiently substantiated, outside the reviewer’s expertise, or when specialized assessment is required.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, independence, professional experience, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Editors may consult:
- the journal’s reviewer database;
- the Editorial Board and professional networks;
- relevant scientific literature and academic databases;
- institutional and professional profiles;
- reviewers suggested by authors, where appropriate.
Author-suggested reviewers are not automatically invited. Editors verify their identity, expertise, independence, institutional affiliation, and potential conflicts of interest before considering an invitation.
Authors may identify individuals whom they prefer not to review the manuscript and may provide a reason. Such requests are considered but are not binding.
Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
Relevant conflicts may include:
Recent or current collaboration
Shared institutional affiliation
Personal or professional relationships
Academic or commercial competition
Financial or intellectual interests
Prior involvement with the manuscript
A reviewer who cannot provide an independent and objective assessment must decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, review invitations, reviewer identities, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
- share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized persons;
- discuss confidential manuscript content outside the review process;
- use unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage;
- retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review;
- identify or contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
A reviewer who wishes to consult a colleague or involve another expert must obtain prior authorization from the handling editor. Any authorized contributor must be identified and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed assessment.
A review may consider:
Originality and scientific contribution
Research design and methodology
Data analysis and statistical validity
Interpretation and conclusions
Ethical and reporting compliance
Clarity, organization, tables, and figures
Adequacy and accuracy of references
Relevance to the journal and its readers
Reviewers should distinguish clearly between essential scientific revisions, optional improvements, and minor editorial suggestions.
Personal criticism, offensive language, unsupported allegations, and comments unrelated to the scientific evaluation are not acceptable.
Citation Requests
Reviewers may recommend relevant references when they are genuinely necessary to support, contextualize, or correct the manuscript.
Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, the journal, an editor, an institution, or associated publications.
Editors may disregard citation requests that are excessive, irrelevant, coercive, or insufficiently justified.
Reviewer Report
Reviewers normally submit:
Comments for the Authors
Constructive scientific comments intended to help the authors and support editorial evaluation.
Confidential Comments for the Editor
Sensitive concerns or additional information relevant to the editorial decision, where appropriate.
Confidential comments should not contradict the main scientific assessment communicated to the authors without a clear and justified reason.
Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may submit one of the following recommendations through OJS:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject and Resubmit
Reject
These recommendations assist the editor but do not constitute editorial decisions. The handling Editor-in-Chief may reach a different decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical requirements, and editorial criteria.
Conflicting or Insufficient Reports
Reviewer reports may differ in emphasis, interpretation, or recommendation. Editorial decisions are not determined by simple numerical voting.
When reports conflict or do not provide a sufficient basis for a decision, the editor may:
- evaluate the scientific arguments presented in each report;
- request clarification from a reviewer;
- invite an additional independent reviewer;
- consult a specialist editor or qualified Editorial Board member;
- make a reasoned editorial judgment based on the complete record.
Revision and Re-Review
Authors invited to revise a manuscript should submit:
- a clean revised manuscript;
- a marked or highlighted version showing the changes;
- a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.
Authors should indicate clearly where changes were made. When a recommendation is not followed, a reasoned scientific explanation should be provided.
Revised manuscripts may be:
Returned to the original reviewers
Assessed by new reviewers
Evaluated editorially
The choice depends on the extent of the revision, the nature of the issues raised, reviewer availability, and the need for additional specialist assessment.
An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
Final Editorial Decision
The handling Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of each manuscript.
The decision may consider:
Reviewer reports
Author responses and revisions
Scientific originality and contribution
Methodological reliability
Ethical and reporting compliance
Relevance and editorial suitability
Acceptance requires a positive editorial judgment regarding the manuscript as a whole. Reviewer approval alone does not guarantee acceptance.
A manuscript may be rejected after peer review when substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, reporting, or interpretative concerns remain unresolved or when the work is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.
Review Time
The journal seeks to conduct peer review and editorial assessment as efficiently as possible while preserving scientific quality and fairness.
Review time may vary according to:
- the subject and specialization of the manuscript;
- reviewer availability and response time;
- the need for additional or replacement reviewers;
- the complexity of the scientific or ethical issues;
- the number and extent of revision rounds.
The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or decision time.
Peer-Review Integrity
The journal does not permit:
- fabricated reviewer identities;
- false or misleading reviewer contact details;
- review reports written by authors or unauthorized third parties;
- manipulation of reviewer selection;
- improper attempts to influence reviewers or editors;
- coercive or inappropriate citation requests;
- unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential manuscript information.
Suspected peer-review manipulation or other misconduct may result in rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, correction, retraction, institutional notification, or other appropriate editorial action.
Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, reviewer identities, and editorial correspondence are confidential.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to public or unauthorized external AI platforms.
AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s personal expert assessment or be used to generate a review that the reviewer has not carefully verified and accepted as their own professional evaluation.
Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, independence, confidentiality, fairness, and scholarly quality of their reports.
Detailed requirements are available in the Use of Generative AI policy.
Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts submitted by an Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, other editor, Editorial Board member, or person closely associated with the journal are subject to the same scientific, ethical, and peer-review standards as all other submissions.
The author-editor is excluded from the preliminary assessment, reviewer selection, review process, editorial correspondence, and decision-making for that manuscript.
The manuscript is assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Where an Editor-in-Chief is an author, the manuscript is handled by another independent Editor-in-Chief or, where necessary, by an independent senior editor or suitably qualified Editorial Board member. The author Editor-in-Chief has no access to or involvement in the review and decision-making process. The independent handling editor assumes full editorial responsibility and makes the final decision.
Concerns and Appeals
Authors may raise concerns regarding significant factual errors, procedural irregularities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or serious misunderstandings affecting the review or decision.
Disagreement with reviewer or editor scientific judgment alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.
Appeals must be specific, reasoned, and supported by relevant evidence. They are considered by an Editor-in-Chief who was not directly responsible for the original decision or, where necessary, by an independent senior editor or suitably qualified Editorial Board member.
.png)
