The Editorial Office of Current Biotechnology strictly adheres to academic publishing standards and international review ethics. All submissions are subject to peer review to ensure academic quality, originality, and scientific rigor, and to maintain a fair, impartial, and confidential review process.
· The journal employs double-blind peer review, in which the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors, and the identities of authors are also concealed from reviewers to ensure objectivity and impartiality.
· All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, non-compliant with formatting requirements, or of insufficient academic quality may be rejected directly without external review.
· Reviewers are selected by the editorial office based on their professional expertise, academic reputation, and relevance to the manuscript’s research field.
· Impartiality: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, free from bias related to institution, region, gender, or personal relationships. Any potential conflict of interest, competitive relationship, or close cooperation with authors must be disclosed, and reviewers must recuse themselves if necessary.
· Timeliness: Reviewers should complete reviews within the agreed time limit. If unable to do so, they must promptly inform the editorial office to allow alternative arrangements.
· Constructive comments: Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based comments that fairly identify strengths, weaknesses, and specific suggestions for improvement.
· Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential. They shall not attempt to identify authors, copy, retain, or disclose manuscript content, nor misuse any information for personal gain.
· Authors guarantee the originality, authenticity, and ethical compliance of their manuscripts, and abide by the journal’s policies on academic misconduct.
· Upon submission, authors must ensure the manuscript is properly anonymized by removing names, affiliations, funding details, acknowledgments, and other identifying information to support double-blind review.
· When revising manuscripts, authors must provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments, clearly explaining revisions or justifying any non-adoption of suggestions.
· Authors must not interfere with the review process or attempt to contact or identify reviewers; violations will be treated as academic misconduct.
Based on peer review comments, the editorial office makes the final decision:
· Acceptance: The manuscript meets publication standards.
· Acceptance after minor revision: Minor revisions are required; once completed within the specified period, the manuscript will be accepted.
· Major revision: Substantial revisions are needed; the revised manuscript will be returned to reviewers for re-evaluation.
· Rejection: The manuscript lacks sufficient novelty, has fatal methodological flaws, or is unsuitable for the journal.
If serious concerns regarding validity, errors, or potential academic misconduct arise after publication, the editorial office will launch an investigation and take appropriate action including correction or retraction in accordance with the journal’s Erratum and Retraction Policy.
