Reviewer Guidelines
JBI reviewers provide expert, constructive evaluations that strengthen biomaterials research.
Purpose Of Peer Review
Peer review ensures that biomaterials research is rigorous, reproducible, and clinically relevant. Reviewers evaluate methodology, data quality, and interpretation, helping authors improve clarity and scientific impact.
Your feedback helps authors strengthen experimental design, reporting quality, and translational relevance. Clear reviews support fair editorial decisions and protect the integrity of the research record.
What To Evaluate
Novelty And Significance
Does the study advance biomaterials science or clinical translation?
Methods And Reproducibility
Are synthesis, characterization, and testing methods clearly described?
Data Integrity
Are results supported by appropriate controls and statistical analysis?
Interpretation
Are conclusions justified, and are limitations clearly stated?
Ethics And Compliance
Are approvals, consent statements, and conflicts of interest documented?
Presentation Quality
Is the manuscript clear, organized, and easy to follow?
Reviewer Conduct
Reviews must be confidential and unbiased. Do not share manuscripts or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews where bias could be perceived.
Provide constructive feedback with specific, actionable recommendations. Focus on scientific quality, not personal critique.
If a manuscript is outside your expertise, inform the editor and focus on sections you can evaluate confidently.
How To Structure Your Review
Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript, followed by major comments on study design, materials characterization, and data interpretation. Provide minor comments on clarity, formatting, or references at the end.
If additional experiments are needed, explain why they are essential for validating the conclusions. Avoid requesting unnecessary work that does not improve scientific rigor.
Data And Reporting Checks
Confirm that key parameters such as composition, processing conditions, and testing protocols are reported. Encourage data availability statements and repository links where appropriate.
Recommendation Options
Editors rely on reviewer recommendations such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Provide a clear rationale for your recommendation and distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.
If you have confidential comments for the editor, use the private notes field in the review system. Public comments should remain constructive and appropriate for authors.
Timeliness
Please submit reviews within the requested timeframe. If you cannot review, decline promptly so another expert can be invited.
Timely reviews help authors and editors maintain momentum and ensure that important biomaterials findings reach the community quickly.
Questions
For guidance or reviewer support, contact [email protected].
We respond promptly to reviewer inquiries.
