The Review Process
The Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Associate Editors, is responsible for the content and all editorial matters related to the journal.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors. If the manuscript appears to be suitable for the Journal, it is assigned to an Associate Editor who has the appropriate scientific expertise to determine appropriate reviewers for peer review. Generally, at least two referees are assigned to review a paper. However, decisions on publication may be made with fewer or more reviews as required. Most decisions are made after one or two rounds of review.
Authors’ suggestions of appropriate reviewers and reviewers to exclude are considered when selecting reviewers. These suggestions are taken as recommendations only.
The Editor makes the final decision about whether a manuscript is accepted for publication. The Editor’s decision takes into account the recommendation of the expert reviewers; however, the final decision may not always match the reviewers’ recommendations. To make a decision, the Editor weighs each reviewer’s opinion and decides which recommendations to accept, and determines if there is adequate reviewer input to make a final decision. When reviewers agree to assess manuscripts submitted to Biointerphases, they are asked to address the following points presented in the manuscript:
- Are the findings original and have similar conclusions or analysis been published previously by the authors or others?
- Is the manuscript free of errors and ambiguities?
- Are the conclusions supported with carefully and clearly presented data and analysis?
- Is the manuscript written clearly?
- Will the manuscript have high impact in the field and is it within the scope of topics covered by the journal?
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the assigned Associate Editor issues one of the following decisions:
- Publish as is: The manuscript can be published, and no further changes are required.
- Minor revision: The manuscript could be published after minor revisions.
- Mandatory revision: The manuscript could be published after mandatory revisions; further review may be necessary.
- Reconsider after major revision: The manuscript might be published after major revision, but further review is necessary.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Biointerphases.
We recommend strongly that authors who receive requests for major, mandatory or minor revisions follow the advice of the reviewers and associate editors. If this advice is not taken, rebuttals will be considered by the editor.
Typically, the editors will transmit all reviewer comments and questions to the authors without editing, except for typographical errors. Very infrequently, the editors may choose not to send reviews to the authors or may delete language that is inappropriate. Examples of such language include expletives or criticism involving the discipline, gender, race, or nationality of the authors. Similarly, if such language is encountered in the author responses or communication with the reviewers, the manuscript will be withdrawn by the editors without further review regardless of its technical merits. The Editors of Biointerphases vow to treat the reviewers, authors, and each other with respect and expect the same from the authors and the reviewers.
Policies surrounding Comments, Responses, and Errata
Comments and Responses
The purpose of Comments is to correct significant errors in articles published in the journal, to rebut conclusions reached, or to provide additional insight or corroboration. Comments must address scientific issues only and be concise, substantive, and contain no harsh criticism. We discourage Comments on questions of priority or calling attention to an oversight in a reference list. Generally, the editor will invite the authors of the Article in question to submit a Response. The Editor-in-Chief decides whether to accept a Comment and Response for publication only after the two parties have submitted final versions of their pieces. The Editor-in-Chief may send a Comment and Response to an adjudicator or reject them entirely.
The journal publishes Errata in which authors correct significant errors of substance in their published manuscripts. Errata should be clear and concise.