{"id":12754,"date":"2026-04-30T15:44:34","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T12:44:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/?page_id=12754"},"modified":"2026-04-30T15:44:34","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T12:44:34","slug":"statement-of-peer-review-policies","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/?page_id=12754","title":{"rendered":"Statement of Peer Review Policies"},"content":{"rendered":"
    \n
  1. Overview of the Peer Review Process<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    All submitted manuscripts undergo a structured editorial process designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. The editorial workflow is managed by the editorial team and supported by an online submission and peer-review system that facilitates communication, tracking, and documentation throughout the process.<\/p>\n

    Following submission, manuscripts are checked for completeness and compliance with basic submission requirements. Each submission then undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that pass this stage may proceed to peer review, while others may be returned to authors without external review if they are deemed outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently developed, or non-compliant with editorial policies.<\/p>\n

    Manuscripts selected for peer review are assigned to an appropriate handling editor based on subject relevance and editorial expertise. The handling editor oversees the peer-review process, including the selection and invitation of reviewers, monitoring of review progress, and evaluation of reviewer reports.<\/p>\n

    The journal operates a structured and transparent peer-review system in which manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts in the field to support informed editorial decision-making and to ensure the scientific quality of published content.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Manuscripts that pass initial screening are typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited depending on the nature, scope, and complexity of the submission.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Based on the outcome of peer review, the handling editor makes a recommendation regarding the manuscript\u2019s suitability for publication. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor, taking into account reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal\u2019s policies. Editorial decisions are independent and are not influenced by commercial considerations or publication fees.<\/p>\n

    Authors may track the status of their submissions through the online system and are notified at key stages of the editorial and review process. The editorial workflow may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, the outcomes of editorial assessment, or the need for revisions.<\/p>\n

    The journal aims to ensure a timely and efficient editorial process. Initial editorial screening is typically completed within 7 days of submission. The peer-review process is generally completed within 2\u20136 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the need for revisions. Authors are informed of any significant delays through the journal\u2019s submission system.<\/p>\n

    The journal does not guarantee acceptance of submitted manuscripts, and all submissions are subject to the same independent peer-review process.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Peer Review Model<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The journal employs a single-blind peer-review model, in which reviewers are aware of the authors\u2019 identities, while authors do not have access to the identities of the reviewers. This model is intended to support informed and expert evaluation while maintaining reviewer independence.<\/p>\n

      All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to external peer review.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to a handling editor, who oversees the peer-review process. The handling editor selects and invites independent reviewers based on subject expertise and relevance to the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and timely assessments of the work.<\/p>\n

      Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary to support the editorial decision-making process.<\/strong><\/p>\n

      All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to decline review assignments where such conflicts exist. Information obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal advantage or shared with third parties.<\/p>\n

      Reviewer reports are considered advisory in nature. Final decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript are made by the editorial team, based on reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

      The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with recognized standards of publication ethics and best practices in scholarly publishing, including principles promoted by the <\/strong>Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Editorial Workflow<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The editorial workflow is designed to ensure a consistent, transparent, and efficient evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. The process is managed by the editorial team and supported by an online submission and peer-review system that facilitates communication, tracking, and documentation throughout all stages of review and decision-making.<\/p>\n

        3.1 Initial Screening<\/strong><\/p>\n

        All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before peer review. This stage is intended to assess whether a submission meets the journal\u2019s basic editorial and ethical requirements and whether it is suitable for further consideration.<\/p>\n

        During initial screening, editors evaluate the manuscript for relevance to the journal\u2019s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and adherence to ethical and integrity policies. This may include preliminary checks related to originality and similarity, completeness of required materials, and overall clarity and scientific presentation.<\/p>\n

        All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software, similarity-checking tools, and editorial assessment to evaluate originality and identify potential overlap with previously published work. Where concerns arise regarding the inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI-assisted tools, the editorial team may request clarification from the authors.<\/p>\n

        The initial screening is conducted by members of the editorial team and does not constitute peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal\u2019s criteria at this stage may be returned to authors without external review. Such decisions are made to ensure an efficient review process and to avoid unnecessary delays for authors and reviewers.<\/p>\n

        Manuscripts that successfully pass initial screening are assigned to a handling editor and proceed to the peer-review stage. Authors are informed of the outcome of the initial screening through the journal\u2019s submission system.<\/p>\n

        3.2 Assignment to Handling Editor<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Manuscripts that successfully pass initial screening are assigned to a handling editor based on subject relevance and editorial expertise. The handling editor oversees the peer-review process, including the selection and invitation of reviewers, monitoring of review progress, and evaluation of reviewer reports.<\/p>\n

        The handling editor is responsible for ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted in a fair, objective, and timely manner, in accordance with the journal\u2019s editorial and ethical standards.<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Automated system notifications support timely communication, while all editorial actions are documented within the submission system.<\/p>\n

        3.3 External Peer Review<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Manuscripts selected for peer review are evaluated by independent experts in the relevant field. The handling editor selects and invites reviewers based on their expertise and the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and timely assessments of the work.<\/p>\n

        Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary to support the editorial evaluation process.<\/strong><\/p>\n

        All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewer reports are considered advisory in nature and are used to support editorial decision-making.<\/p>\n

        3.4 Editorial Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Based on the outcome of peer review, the handling editor makes a recommendation regarding the manuscript\u2019s suitability for publication. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor, taking into account reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

        Editorial decisions are independent and are not influenced by commercial considerations or publication fees. All decisions are communicated to authors through the journal\u2019s submission system, together with the rationale supporting the outcome.<\/p>\n

        The editorial workflow may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, the outcomes of editorial assessment, or the need for revisions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. The purpose of peer review is to support informed editorial decision-making and to assist authors in improving the clarity, methodological rigor, and scholarly value of their work through independent, objective, and constructive evaluation.<\/p>\n

          Reviewer assessments are advisory in nature and form part of a structured editorial process overseen by the editorial team. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific merit and relevance, and to provide professional, evidence-based feedback that contributes to the integrity and advancement of scholarly communication.<\/p>\n

          4.1 Reviewer Selection<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. Potential reviewers are identified through their publication record, academic background, or recognized professional contributions in the field.<\/p>\n

          The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers are independent of the authors and free from conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the evaluation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

          The journal seeks to select reviewers who are independent of the authors and who have no recent collaborative, institutional, financial, or personal relationships that could compromise the objectivity of the review.<\/p>\n

          Individuals interested in serving as reviewers may register through the journal\u2019s submission system or contact the editorial office. The selection and assignment of reviewers remain at the discretion of the editorial team.<\/p>\n

          The journal seeks to promote diversity and inclusivity in reviewer selection, considering factors such as geographic distribution, institutional affiliation, and career stage, where appropriate.<\/p>\n

          4.2 Responsibilities of Reviewers<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations in a fair, objective, and timely manner. Reviews should be clear, constructive, and evidence-based, with the primary aim of supporting the improvement of the manuscript.<\/p>\n

          Comments should be specific, well-reasoned, and, where appropriate, supported by references or concrete examples. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major issues affecting the validity or interpretation of the work and minor issues related to presentation or clarity.<\/p>\n

          Reviews should be respectful and professional in tone. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or unsubstantiated allegations are not appropriate.<\/p>\n

          4.3 Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript for personal, professional, or competitive advantage prior to publication. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, or any confidential review materials to external AI tools or third-party platforms unless explicitly authorized by the journal.<\/p>\n

          Reviewers are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence their assessment and should decline review assignments where such conflicts exist.<\/p>\n

          Reviewers are expected to adhere to recognized standards of publication ethics, including principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Any unpublished information disclosed during the review process must be treated as strictly confidential and must not be used for personal advantage or shared with third parties.<\/p>\n

          4.4 Acceptance of Review Invitations<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they have the appropriate expertise, are able to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe, and have no conflicts of interest that could compromise objectivity.<\/p>\n

          If a reviewer is unable to provide an impartial and timely assessment, they should decline the invitation and, where appropriate, inform the editorial team. Reviewers are encouraged to communicate promptly with the editorial office if circumstances change during the review process.<\/p>\n

          4.5 Communication and Reporting Concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n

          All communication related to the review process should take place through the journal\u2019s submission system or official editorial channels. Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript under review.<\/p>\n

          Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial team of any concerns related to potential plagiarism, data integrity issues, ethical considerations, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editors and not included in comments intended for authors.<\/p>\n

          The editorial team evaluates all reported concerns in accordance with the journal\u2019s editorial and ethical policies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Review Criteria<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Reviewers are asked to evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the journal\u2019s scope. Reviews should provide a balanced and critical assessment that highlights both the strengths of the work and areas where improvement or clarification is needed.<\/p>\n

            Reviewer evaluations form an essential part of the editorial decision-making process and are considered alongside editorial judgment and journal policies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

            In conducting their evaluation, reviewers are encouraged to apply professional judgment and to consider the criteria outlined below in a contextual and flexible manner. Not all criteria may be applicable to every type of manuscript, and assessments should be tailored to the nature, scope, and objectives of the submission.<\/p>\n

            5.1 Scope and Relevance<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal and addresses topics aligned with its scholarly focus.
            \nThe subject matter is relevant to the intended academic audience, either broadly or within a clearly defined specialized field.
            \nThe study contributes meaningfully to ongoing research, discussion, or practice within the relevant discipline.
            \nReviewers are encouraged to provide brief justification where concerns about scope or relevance arise, to support editorial assessment.<\/p>\n

            5.2 Originality and Contribution<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The manuscript presents original research, ideas, or perspectives, or offers a meaningful extension or refinement of existing knowledge.
            \nThe work makes a clear and identifiable contribution to the existing literature, advancing understanding within the relevant field.
            \nThe study is appropriately positioned within the context of previously published work and clearly differentiates its contributions from prior research.<\/p>\n

            Originality should be assessed in relation to the current state of the field. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the nature and significance of the contribution and to provide justification where originality or novelty appears limited.<\/p>\n

            5.3 Scientific Rigor and Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The study design and methodological approach are appropriate for addressing the stated research questions or objectives.
            \nExperimental, analytical, or computational methods are described with sufficient detail to allow critical evaluation and, where feasible, reproducibility.
            \nMethodological choices are scientifically justified, and any limitations or potential sources of bias are appropriately acknowledged and addressed.<\/p>\n

            Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the robustness of the methodology and to identify any issues that may affect the validity or interpretation of the results.<\/p>\n

            5.4 Data Quality and Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

            Data are clearly presented and analyzed using methods appropriate to the study design and data type.
            \nStatistical analyses, where applicable, are suitable, correctly applied, and reported with sufficient detail to support interpretation and reproducibility.
            \nData processing steps and transformations are transparent and scientifically justified.
            \nFigures, tables, and images accurately represent the underlying data and are prepared in accordance with standards for data integrity and appropriate image handling.<\/p>\n

            Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the clarity, completeness, and reliability of the data presentation and analysis, and to identify any issues that may affect the validity of the results.<\/p>\n

            5.5 Interpretation and Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The conclusions are clearly supported by the data and analyses presented and are consistent with the stated objectives of the study.
            \nLimitations, uncertainties, and potential sources of bias are appropriately acknowledged and discussed.
            \nClaims are not overstated or generalized beyond the evidence provided, and any speculative statements are clearly identified as such and appropriately qualified.<\/p>\n

            Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the coherence between the results and the conclusions and to suggest clarifications or revisions where interpretations may require greater precision or balance.<\/p>\n

            5.6 Ethical and Integrity Considerations<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The manuscript complies with ethical standards relevant to the research and includes appropriate ethics, consent, and data availability statements where applicable.
            \nPotential issues related to data integrity, image manipulation, or similarity are appropriately addressed in accordance with the journal\u2019s editorial and ethical policies.
            \nConflicts of interest are transparently disclosed and appropriately managed.<\/p>\n

            Where relevant, ethical evaluation is conducted in line with internationally recognized standards, including principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

            Reviewers are encouraged to assess ethical and integrity aspects carefully and to confidentially alert the editorial team to any concerns that may warrant further evaluation.<\/p>\n

            Authors are encouraged to include a data availability statement indicating whether the data supporting the findings of the study are publicly available, available upon reasonable request, or subject to restrictions. Where possible, authors are encouraged to deposit data in recognized repositories to support transparency and reproducibility.<\/p>\n

            5.7 Presentation and Clarity<\/strong><\/p>\n

            The manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and organized in a manner appropriate for the journal\u2019s scholarly audience.
            \nThe language, figures, and overall presentation support understanding of the research objectives, methods, and findings.
            \nReferences are relevant, appropriately selected, and properly cited.<\/p>\n

            Reviewers should distinguish clearly between major issues that affect the validity, interpretation, or clarity of the study and minor issues related to language, formatting, or presentation. While clarity is important, issues of presentation alone should not outweigh the scientific content of the work. Recommendations should be supported by specific comments and, where possible, constructive suggestions that assist authors in improving the manuscript.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of confidentiality, integrity, and ethical conduct throughout the editorial and peer-review process. All participants in the publication process, including editors, reviewers, and authors, are expected to adhere to established ethical principles and professional standards.<\/p>\n

              6.1 Confidentiality<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Information contained in submitted or unpublished manuscripts must not be shared, disclosed, or used for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.<\/p>\n

              Editors and reviewers must ensure that all materials under review are handled securely and are not distributed outside the editorial and peer-review process without explicit authorization.<\/p>\n

              Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the single-blind peer-review model, and all communications are conducted through the journal\u2019s official submission system.<\/p>\n

              6.2 Conflicts of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

              All participants in the editorial and peer-review process are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence, or be perceived to influence, their judgment.<\/p>\n

              Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, including situations involving personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors or the subject matter of the work.<\/p>\n

              When a manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, or other individual involved in the journal\u2019s editorial process, the submission is handled independently by another qualified editor who has no conflict of interest. The submitting editor is excluded from the review and decision-making process.<\/p>\n

              Authors are expected to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest at the time of submission, in accordance with the journal\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n

              6.3 Ethical Standards and Integrity<\/strong><\/p>\n

              The journal is committed to upholding high standards of research integrity and publication ethics. All manuscripts are expected to comply with applicable ethical requirements, including those related to authorship, data integrity, and responsible research conduct.<\/p>\n

              Authorship should be based on substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation, as well as involvement in drafting or critically revising the manuscript. All authors must approve the final version and agree to be accountable for the content of the work.<\/p>\n

              The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools or other automated systems in the preparation of manuscripts must be disclosed by the authors. Such tools cannot be listed as authors, and authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the content. The journal reserves the right to request additional information regarding the use of AI-assisted technologies where necessary.<\/p>\n

              The journal follows internationally recognized authorship standards, such as those reflected in established publication ethics guidelines.<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Allegations of misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, or unethical research practices, are investigated by the editorial team in accordance with the journal\u2019s policies and relevant ethical guidelines.<\/p>\n

              Where necessary, appropriate editorial actions may be taken, including corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Editorial Decision-Making<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts are based on a combination of peer-review feedback, editorial judgment, and compliance with the journal\u2019s editorial and ethical policies. While reviewer reports provide important expert input, final decisions are made by the editorial team.<\/p>\n

                Based on the outcome of peer review, manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, or returned to authors for minor or major revision. Requests for revision are intended to address specific concerns raised during editorial assessment or peer review and do not guarantee eventual acceptance.<\/p>\n

                Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor, taking into account reviewer feedback, editorial judgment, and the manuscript\u2019s compliance with the journal\u2019s policies and standards.<\/p>\n

                Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the authors\u2019 institutional affiliation, geographic location, or any commercial considerations, including publication fees.<\/p>\n

                All decisions are communicated to authors in a timely manner through the journal\u2019s submission system, together with relevant feedback from the editorial and peer-review process.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Revisions and Author Responsibilities<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts based on comments provided during editorial assessment or peer review. Revisions may be classified as minor or major, depending on the nature and extent of the issues identified.<\/p>\n

                  Requests for revision are intended to address specific concerns raised by editors or reviewers and do not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments in a clear and structured manner and to revise their manuscript accordingly.<\/p>\n

                  Revised manuscripts may be subject to further editorial assessment and, where appropriate, additional rounds of peer review.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  Authors are responsible for ensuring that their revised submissions comply with the journal\u2019s editorial policies, ethical standards, and submission requirements.<\/p>\n

                  Manuscripts are accepted for publication only after the editorial team determines that all substantive concerns have been adequately addressed and that the manuscript meets the journal\u2019s standards for publication.<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Appeals and Complaints<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    The journal recognizes the importance of a fair and transparent editorial process and provides mechanisms for authors and other stakeholders to raise appeals or complaints when appropriate.<\/p>\n

                    9.1 Appeals<\/strong><\/p>\n

                    Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a procedural issue that affected the outcome of the review process. Appeals should be supported by a clear and reasoned explanation and must address specific points raised in the editorial or reviewer feedback.<\/p>\n

                    Appeals based solely on disagreement with editorial judgment or reviewer opinions are generally not considered. All appeals are assessed by a senior member of the editorial team who was not directly involved in the original decision, where possible.<\/p>\n

                    Following review of an appeal, the editorial decision may be upheld or, in exceptional cases, reconsidered. Decisions made after the appeal process are final.<\/p>\n

                    Appeals may be submitted without a fixed deadline; however, timely submission is strongly encouraged to ensure an effective and efficient review of the appeal. The journal may take the timing and circumstances of the appeal into account when determining whether reconsideration is appropriate.<\/p>\n

                    The journal aims to handle appeals in a fair, impartial, and timely manner, in accordance with its editorial and ethical standards.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                    9.2 Complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n

                    Complaints may relate to the editorial process, peer review conduct, communication, or other aspects of journal operations. All complaints are handled confidentially and are reviewed by the editorial office or a designated senior editor, depending on the nature of the issue.<\/p>\n

                    The journal is committed to addressing complaints in a fair, impartial, and timely manner. Where appropriate, corrective actions may be taken to improve editorial processes or address identified concerns.<\/p>\n

                    All complaints are assessed in accordance with the journal\u2019s policies and recognized standards of publication ethics, including principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Post-Publication Policies<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      The journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly record. When errors or concerns are identified after publication, appropriate editorial actions may be taken to correct the literature in a transparent, timely, and proportionate manner.<\/p>\n

                      10.1 Corrections and Retractions<\/strong><\/p>\n

                      Post-publication issues may be identified by authors, editors, reviewers, or readers. All reported concerns are subject to editorial assessment to determine their nature, scope, and potential impact on the validity and integrity of the published work. Authors are informed of such concerns and are given the opportunity to provide clarification or additional information where appropriate.<\/p>\n

                      Depending on the nature of the issue, one or more of the following actions may be taken:<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. a) Erratum<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        An erratum may be issued to correct errors introduced during the editorial or production process, such as typographical mistakes, formatting errors, or inaccuracies that occurred after manuscript acceptance. Errata are issued when the error does not affect the scientific content, interpretation, or conclusions of the article.<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. b) Corrigendum<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          A corrigendum may be issued when authors identify errors originating from the submitted manuscript, including mistakes in data presentation, author information, figures, or text, provided that these errors do not compromise the overall validity or conclusions of the work. Authors are expected to notify the editorial office promptly when such errors are discovered.<\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. c) Correction<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            A correction may be published as a general mechanism to address errors that require formal amendment of the published record but do not invalidate the article. Corrections may be used in place of, or alongside, errata or corrigenda, depending on editorial practice, and are clearly linked to the original article.<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. d) Retraction<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              A retraction may be issued when errors, data integrity issues, plagiarism, or other serious concerns are identified that substantially undermine the reliability of the findings or conclusions of the article. Retractions are intended to correct the scholarly record and do not necessarily imply misconduct by the authors.<\/p>\n

                              10.2 Expressions of Concern<\/strong><\/p>\n

                              An expression of concern may be issued when there are serious questions regarding the integrity, reliability, or ethical compliance of a published article, but the available information is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion. This may occur, for example, when an investigation is ongoing or when key information cannot be verified promptly.<\/p>\n

                              10.3 Post-Publication Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                              The journal supports constructive post-publication discussion as part of the scholarly communication process. Questions, comments, or concerns regarding published articles may be submitted to the editorial office via the journal\u2019s designated contact email.<\/p>\n

                              All post-publication inquiries are initially reviewed by a member of the editorial team to assess their relevance, scientific merit, and appropriateness. Where deemed appropriate, the inquiry may be forwarded to the authors of the original article for clarification or response.<\/p>\n

                              Author responses are evaluated by the editorial team together with the original inquiry. Where the exchange contributes meaningfully to scientific understanding, clarification, or interpretation of the published work, the editorial team may consider publishing the discussion, in whole or in part, alongside the original article or as a linked editorial item.<\/p>\n

                              The publication of post-publication discussions is subject to editorial discretion. Only exchanges that are scientifically relevant, evidence-based, and presented respectfully and constructively will be considered. Issues raised through post-publication discussion may also lead to further editorial action, including corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, in accordance with the journal\u2019s editorial and ethical policies.<\/p>\n

                              Discussions of a general, informal, or non-scholarly nature fall outside the scope of the journal\u2019s editorial processes.<\/p>\n

                              10.4 Ethical Oversight<\/strong><\/p>\n

                              All post-publication actions are conducted in accordance with established editorial and ethical standards, including principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>. Notices are clearly identified, publicly accessible, and permanently linked to the original article to ensure transparency and accountability.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Transparency and Independence<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                The journal is committed to ensuring transparency, fairness, and independence throughout the editorial and peer-review process. All editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific merit of the submitted work, its relevance to the journal\u2019s scope, and its compliance with editorial and ethical standards.<\/p>\n

                                Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the authors\u2019 institutional affiliation, geographic location, or any commercial considerations, including publication fees, sponsorship, or advertising.<\/p>\n

                                The editorial and peer-review processes are conducted in a transparent manner, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for editors and reviewers, as described in the journal\u2019s policies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                Any potential conflicts of interest involving editors, reviewers, or authors are managed in accordance with the journal\u2019s policies to ensure objectivity and integrity in decision-making.<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and to upholding high standards of academic publishing.<\/p>\n

                                The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions, which are made independently by the editorial team.<\/p>\n

                                Additional Information<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                For further information, authors, reviewers, and readers are encouraged to consult the journal\u2019s Editorial Procedures, Editorial Guidelines, and Research Ethics and Policies sections, where additional guidance is provided.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                Overview of the Peer Review Process All submitted manuscripts undergo a structured editorial process designed to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. The editorial workflow is managed by the editorial team and supported by an online submission and peer-review system that facilitates communication, tracking, and documentation throughout …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":12329,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-12754","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12754"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12755,"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12754\/revisions\/12755"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biointerfaceresearch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}