At the Journal of Natural Science, Biology, and Medicine (JNSBM), we uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor through a robust and transparent peer-review process. Our peer review policy is designed to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscripts we publish, while fostering constructive feedback for authors.

• Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JNSBM employs a double-blind peer review system to maintain impartiality and fairness. In this process:

• The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.
• Manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

• Initial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure they meet the following criteria:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Adherence to the submission guidelines.
• Basic quality standards, including originality, clarity, and adherence to ethical guidelines.

Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to experts in the field for peer review.

• Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in the relevant subject area. The selection process ensures:

• Independence from the authors or their affiliated institutions.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

• Review Criteria

Reviewers are tasked with evaluating manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Scientific accuracy and methodological soundness.
• Relevance and significance to the field.
• Clarity and coherence of the presentation.
• Adherence to ethical standards in research and publication.

• Review Outcomes

After reviewing, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept as is: The manuscript meets all publication criteria without revisions.
• Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor adjustments before acceptance.
• Major revisions: Substantial changes are needed, and the revised manuscript will undergo further review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

• Revision Process

Authors are given an opportunity to revise their manuscript in response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the stipulated time frame, along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

• Editorial Decision

The editorial board, led by the Editor-in-Chief, makes the final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance, considering the reviewers’ recommendations and the authors’ revisions. The possible outcomes are:

• Acceptance for publication.
• Request for further revisions.
• Rejection with detailed feedback.

• . Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

• All submissions are treated with strict confidentiality.
• Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• Manuscripts suspected of ethical breaches, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, are handled according to the journal’s ethical policies.

• . Timeliness

We strive to ensure a timely peer review process, typically completing the review within 4–8 weeks of submission. Authors are kept informed about the progress of their manuscript at each stage.

• . Recognition of Reviewers

To acknowledge the invaluable contributions of reviewers, JNSBM offers certificates of appreciation and, where applicable, recognition on platforms such as Publons.

By adhering to these principles, JNSBM aims to maintain the integrity of the scientific record and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in natural science, biology, and medicine.