Experts rigorously and fully review all articles submitted for publication in Biomaterials Translational, including invited papers and spontaneous submissions. After receiving notification of the submission, the Editorial Board Member will be asked to do an editorial pre-check. After that, a peer review conducted by independent experts will be arranged to gather at least two review reports for each paper. Reviewers' reports gathered throughout the peer-review process will be made available to authors using the Editorial Manager (EM) platform in order to maintain transparency during the whole manuscript processing procedure. Before making a final decision, sufficient modifications from our authors will be required, along with a second round of peer review if needed. The Guest Editor, the Editorial Board Member, or the Editor-in-Chief makes the ultimate decisions on whether to accept the final version. Accepted articles undergo typesetting and English editing will be announced online in the last. 

Pre-check

A technical pre-check conducted by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check conducted by an Academic Editor are the two primary steps of the pre-screening stage. Following submission, the technical pre-check will be conducted by the journal's Editorial Office to evaluate:

1. the overall fit of the paper to the journal or Special Issue
2. the manuscript's conformity to ethical and high-quality research standards
3. requirements of rigor to be eligible for additional evaluation

An editorial pre-check will then be conducted by an Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will evaluate the submission's appropriateness for the journal's scope during the editorial pre-check phase. They will also evaluate the manuscript's general scientific soundness, including the accuracy of the applied methodology and the relevancy of the references. The Academic Editor has three options: reject the submission, ask for changes before peer review, or proceed with peer review and suggest qualified reviewers.

Due to a conflict of interest, Guest Editors of Special Issues are not permitted to decide on their own manuscripts that have been submitted to their Special Issue. An Editorial Board member will be in charge of making decisions instead. Only in their capacity as an author will the Guest Editor have access to the review process. Similarly, other members of the Editorial Board, such as Editors-in-Chief, can only access the manuscript review process in their capacity as authors. 

Peer Review

Our peer review process is single-blind, meaning that the authors will not have the capacity to access the reviewers’ identities.

Each submitted article receives a minimum of two review reports. During pre-check, the Academic Editor can recommend reviewers. As an alternative, the editorial staff will use qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers found through related article web searches.

Reviewers can be suggested by authors. Potential conflicts of interest will be avoided, and people with conflicting interests will not be taken into consideration by the journal Editorial Office. When submitting their manuscript for peer review, authors can also list the names of possible reviewers they would like to have excluded from consideration. The Editorial Team will also honor the review requests if they do not impede the submission's objective and comprehensive evaluation.

The following criteria must be fulfilled by every reviewer:

1. They should not be in conflict with any of the authors' interests.
2. They should not be affiliated with the same organization as the writers.
3. It was not appropriate for them to co-publish with the writers during the previous three years.
4. They ought to be an MD or PhD.
5. They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper.
6. They ought to be seasoned academics in the field of the paper that was submitted.
7. They ought to have a formal, acknowledged academic affiliation.

When a reviewer is chosen to examine a paper, they must:

1. possess the knowledge required to assess the quality of a manuscript
2. deliver quality review reports and stay in touch during the peer review process
3. uphold ethical and professional norms

After accepting a review invitation, reviewers have 7 to 10 days to complete their review using our online platform. On request, extensions may be given.

Reviewers have three days to provide their report after reading a revised paper. On request, extensions may also be given.

The Editorial Office manages all correspondence with reviewers, authors, and the external editor to support Academic Editors. Academic Editors can communicate with journal personnel at any point during the manuscript review process and view the progress of their submissions and the identities of their reviewers.

Revision

Before sending the article to the Academic Editor, the Editorial Office will ask the author to make necessary adjustments, whether they are minor or major. The Academic Editor will be consulted when there are conflicting review reports or when there are one or more rejection recommendations. At this point, the Academic Editor may ask for further reviewers or more review reports.

Depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the updated version, manuscripts may or may not be delivered to them. Reviewers who suggest rejection or ask for significant changes will automatically receive the updated manuscript. The latest version of the manuscript is available to all reviewers.

Editor Decision

Following peer review, the Academic Editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or another appropriate member of the Editorial Board) can decide whether to accept a manuscript after receiving at least two review reports. Rather than making choices on their own papers, Academic Editors’ papers will be assigned to other appropriate members of the Editorial Board. 

Academic Editors will consider the following when reaching a decision:

1. the appropriateness of the reviewers who submitted review reports
2. the sufficiency of the reviewers' comments and author's replies
3. the paper's overall level of scientific excellence

Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Revise, and Reject are the alternative available decisions to the Academic Editor. The Editors-in-Chief or Academic Editors are able to disagree with the recommendations made by reviewers. If they do, they ought to provide an explanation for their choice to the reviewers and authors. Sometimes Academic Editor could reject the submission even if a reviewer recommends that the submission be accepted. Before notifying the authors of a final decision, the journal Editorial Office will ask the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board for a second independent perspective.

Please note that only Academic Editors have the authority to accept articles for publication.  The Editorial Office will only be in charge of communication and will never make any decision on whether to accept or reject one manuscript.

Production

All text production, including language editing, copy editing, and XML conversion, is handled by the journal teams. The authors are free to consult a colleague who speaks English as their first language, which is our preferred choice, or use alternative English editing services.