Peer Review Process

1. Overview

Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry uses a single-blind peer-review model, in which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors unless otherwise required by an exceptional editorial circumstance.

Manuscripts that fall within the categories requiring peer review are evaluated by appropriately qualified independent reviewers before a final editorial decision is made.

Peer review is intended to support the scientific evaluation of manuscripts and to assist editors in determining whether submitted work meets the journal’s standards concerning scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, transparency, and research integrity.

Reviewers provide recommendations and expert assessments. Final editorial decisions are made by the responsible editor and are not determined automatically by reviewer recommendations.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, a manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The responsible editor considers whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
  • corresponds to an appropriate article type;
  • meets basic scientific and editorial requirements;
  • provides sufficient methodological and reporting information for meaningful evaluation;
  • complies with applicable authorship, ethical, data, disclosure, and research-integrity requirements;
  • is sufficiently complete and suitable to proceed to external peer review.

A manuscript may be returned for technical or editorial clarification before peer review.

A manuscript may also be rejected without external review where it is clearly outside the journal’s scope, does not meet basic scientific or editorial requirements, raises substantial unresolved ethical or integrity concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

A desk rejection is an editorial decision and does not imply research misconduct.

3. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are assigned to an appropriately qualified editor or handling editor.

The handling editor is responsible for coordinating the scientific evaluation of the manuscript, including:

  • identifying appropriate reviewers;
  • assessing potential reviewer conflicts of interest;
  • considering reviewer reports;
  • requesting additional review where necessary;
  • communicating appropriate revision requirements;
  • making or recommending an editorial decision in accordance with the journal’s governance structure.

Assignment decisions should take into account the editor’s subject expertise and any relevant competing interests.

An editor must not handle a manuscript where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject-matter expertise and their ability to provide an independent, critical, and constructive assessment of the manuscript.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviewer reports for manuscripts undergoing external peer review.

Reviewer selection may take into account:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • scientific or professional experience;
  • publication and research activity;
  • previous reviewing experience;
  • independence from the authors and the work under evaluation;
  • absence of relevant competing interests;
  • ability to provide a timely and substantive assessment.

Reviewer selection is not based solely on bibliometric indicators, institutional prestige, geographic location, or automated recommendations.

Authors may be permitted to suggest or identify potential reviewers where applicable, but such suggestions are not binding on the editor.

Editors retain responsibility for independently assessing the suitability and independence of reviewers.

5. Reviewer Independence and Competing Interests

Invited reviewers must disclose any relevant competing interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline an invitation where, for example:

  • they have a close personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationship with an author that could impair independence;
  • they have a direct interest in the outcome of the work;
  • they are currently involved in a competing or closely related activity that creates a relevant conflict;
  • another circumstance makes impartial assessment reasonably doubtful.

The responsible editor determines whether a disclosed interest is compatible with participation in the review.

6. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, or other unauthorized purposes.

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, supplementary materials, data, or other confidential content to external artificial-intelligence tools or third-party systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or applicable data-protection requirements.

The use of AI and generative tools in peer review and editorial processes must comply with the journal’s AI and Generative Tools Policy.

7. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to criteria relevant to the nature of the work.

Assessment may include:

  • scientific relevance and originality;
  • clarity of the research question or objective;
  • appropriateness of study design and methodology;
  • adequacy of experimental or analytical procedures;
  • statistical or computational methods, where relevant;
  • adequacy of controls and comparisons;
  • transparency and reproducibility of reporting;
  • validity of results and interpretation;
  • whether conclusions are supported by the evidence;
  • quality and clarity of figures and tables;
  • appropriateness and currency of references;
  • compliance with relevant reporting standards;
  • ethical, data-integrity, or research-integrity concerns.

Reviewers should provide evidence-based, constructive comments and must avoid personal, discriminatory, defamatory, coercive, or otherwise inappropriate language.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine the editorial decision.

8. Ethical and Integrity Concerns During Peer Review

Reviewers should confidentially notify the responsible editor if they identify potential concerns involving, for example:

  • plagiarism or substantial inappropriate overlap;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • undisclosed competing interests;
  • authorship concerns;
  • missing or inconsistent ethics information;
  • inconsistent or unavailable supporting data;
  • other potential breaches of research or publication integrity.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct formal misconduct investigations.

Screening tools, similarity reports, image-analysis tools, AI detectors, or other automated systems may support editorial assessment but must not by themselves establish misconduct.

9. Revision and Re-Review

Where revision is requested, authors should respond to reviewer and editor comments in a clear and systematic manner and identify substantive changes made to the manuscript.

A revised manuscript may be:

  • assessed by the handling editor;
  • returned to one or more original reviewers;
  • sent to an additional reviewer;
  • subjected to another appropriate form of scientific assessment.

The need for additional review depends on the nature and extent of the revisions and the issues raised during the previous evaluation.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

10. Editorial Decisions

Following assessment of the manuscript and relevant reviewer reports, the responsible editor may issue an appropriate decision, such as:

  • accept;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision;
  • reject;
  • another editorial outcome appropriate to the manuscript and stage of evaluation.

The editor considers the scientific evidence, reviewer comments, author responses, journal policies, and any relevant ethical or integrity issues.

Reviewer recommendations are considered seriously but do not operate as a numerical vote and do not bind the editor.

Where reviewer reports materially conflict, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional independent review, or make an editorial judgment based on the available evidence.

11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, or other individuals involved in the journal’s editorial structure are subject to the same applicable scientific, ethical, and peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

An editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise has a relevant competing interest in a submission must not:

  • select reviewers;
  • participate in substantive peer-review deliberations;
  • determine revision requirements;
  • influence the final editorial decision.

Responsibility must be transferred to an appropriately qualified independent editor who has no relevant competing interest and has genuine authority over the manuscript.

The submitting editor must not use their position to influence the assessment or outcome.

12. Non-Research Editorial Content

Editorials, commentaries, publisher notices, and other non-research editorial content may be subject to editorial assessment rather than external peer review.

Such material must be clearly identified by article type and must not be presented as peer-reviewed original research or review content unless it has actually undergone the applicable peer-review process.

Where such content is authored by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor, its handling must comply with applicable competing-interest and independent-handling requirements.

13. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they identify a specific and material concern involving the review process, evidence considered, procedural fairness, relevant competing interests, or another substantive editorial issue.

An appeal is not an automatic entitlement to a new round of external peer review and is not intended merely to obtain a different scientific opinion.

Appeals must be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor or other designated person who was not materially involved in the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest.

Detailed requirements are provided in the journal’s Appeals and Complaints policy.

14. Relationship with Other Policies

The peer-review process should be read together with the journal’s policies concerning: