Experts rigorously and fully review all articles submitted for publication in Biomaterials Translational, including invited papers and spontaneous submissions. After receiving a submission, the Editorial Office and an assigned Academic Editor, who is typically chosen from the journal’s Editorial Board (i.e., the Editors-in-Chief and expertise-relevant members of the Editorial Board) will perform pre-checks on the manuscript received. Afterward, a peer review conducted by independent experts will be arranged to gather at least two review reports for each paper, based on which an editorial decision will be made by the assigned Academic Editor. Review 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. If revision recommendations are given, authors are required to complete revisions in the manuscript prior to the deadline, before the next round of peer review begins. All editorial decisions, such as Acceptance, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Rejection, for submissions are made by the assigned Academic Editors. Accepted articles that have been edited and typeset will eventually be released online.
Pre-check
A technical pre-check conducted by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check conducted by an Academic Editor form the first two steps of the pre-screening stage. An Academic Editor is typically chosen from the journal’s Editorial Board (i.e., the Editors-in-Chief and expertise-relevant members of the Editorial Board).
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;
(2) the manuscript's conformity to ethical and high-quality research standards; and
(3) the eligibility of the submissions for additional evaluation. Subsequently, the manuscript will be assigned to an Academic Editor, who will oversee the editorial and peer review process for the assigned manuscript. During the editorial pre-check, the Academic Editor will evaluate whether the topic and content of the submission fall within the journal's scope. They will also evaluate the manuscript's general scientific soundness, including the accuracy of the applied methodology and the relevance of the references. Based on the pre-check feedback and findings, the Academic Editor will either reject the submission, ask for more revisions prior to peer review, or proceed with peer review.
For submissions authored by the any of the Academic Editors currently serving the Editorial Board, the Editorial Office will ensure that another Academic Editor, who has no competing interests with the authors, is selected to oversee the editorial and peer review process for the new submission, and to make editorial decisions when sufficient number of review reports have been received.
Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making
Biomaterials Translational adopts single-blind peer review process, meaning that the authors will not have the capacity to access the reviewers’ identities.
Scholars and experts recommended by the Academic Editor during editorial pre-check will be appointed as reviewers. Alternatively, qualified members of the Editorial Board with relevant expertise and knowledge, qualified reviewers from the reviewer database, and/or new, external scholars identified through web searches will also be considered and selected as reviewers. Each submitted article will receive a least two review reports.
Reviewers can be suggested by authors. Potential conflicts of interest should be avoided, and scholars with conflicting interests will not be taken into consideration by the journal’s Editorial Office. When submitting their manuscript for peer review, authors can also list the names of possible reviewers they would like to exclude from consideration. However, the decision on whether such review requests will be considered lies with the Editorial Office.
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 authors.
3.They should not have co-published with the authors in the past three years.
4.They should have an MD or PhD degree.
5.They should have relevant experiences 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 submitted paper.
7.They should be academic or scholar formally affiliated with recognized institutes.
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 before the stipulated deadline and stay in touch with the Editorial Office during the peer review process; and (3) uphold ethical and professional norms.
After accepting a review invitation, the invited scholars or experts should complete the review through our online platform within 7–10 days for the first round of peer review. For reviewing a revised paper, reviewers are advised spend no longer than three days to complete the review task. Extensions may be granted if requested.
The Editorial Office manages all correspondence with reviewers and authors, and assists the Academic Editors (Editors-in-Chief and other expertise-relevant members of the Editorial Board) throughout the editorial and peer review process for a submission. Academic Editors can access the progress details and the reviewers’ identity of assigned submissions. Please note that only the Academic Editors have the authority to make final editorial decision (acceptance, rejection), while the Editorial Office will never make any final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript.
Following peer review, the Academic Editor will make an editorial decision for the manuscript based on at least two review reports. Academic Editors will consider the following when making an editorial decision: (1) qualifications of the contributing reviewers; (2) comprehensiveness of the review reports as well as author's replies and revisions; and (3) the paper's overall level of scientific excellence. The Academic Editors may decide against the recommendations made by reviewers. In such cases, justifications for overruling the reviewers’ recommendations ought to be made by the Academic Editor and made available to both reviewers and authors. Decisions that can be made by an Academic Editor for a manuscript include: Acceptance, Minor Revision, Major Revisions, and Rejection.
Revision
If the decision received is either a Major or a Minor Revision, authors are recommended to address the reviewers’ comments and make the corresponding revisions in the manuscript. Revised manuscript will need to be resubmitted to the Editorial Office for another round of peer review, in which the previously contributing reviewers will be invited again to review the updated manuscript. Upon receiving the new review reports, the Academic Editor will be requested to make the next editorial decision, according to the procedures and principles described in the above section.
Production and Proofreading
The production process for an article, including language editing, copy-editing, and XML conversion, is handled by the journal’s Editorial Office. To enhance the production efficiency, we strongly recommend the authors whose native language is not English to use professional English editing services for the manuscript.
Authors will be notified to proof their galley proof when ready.
