‘‘Journal of Novelty in Biomedicine’’ is a peer reviewed journal and more than 80 percent of its content is dedicated to original research articles. This journal is an open and free access journal devoted to publishing new models or hypotheses, innovative methods, techniques or apparatus in all fields of biomedicine.  This journal is guided by an editorial executive committee and accepts original articles, review articles, case reports and brief reports, case series, letter to the editor in any field of medicine and basic sciences.

Publication Ethics

Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers

  • To inform the editor if they want to refuse reviewing the manuscript as soon as possible.
  • To notify the editor if they have any conflict of interests.
  • To review the manuscript in a timely manner and objective.
  • To keep the confidentiality of the manuscript.
  • To inform the editor if they detected any plagiarism, falsified or manipulated data.

Editorial responsibilities

  • Monitoring and maintaining ethical standards.
  • Selecting reviewers and guiding them during the reviewing process.
  • The Editor-in-Chief have the authority to make final decision about acceptance/rejection of manuscript.
  • Recommending active and suitable reviewers
  • Attempt to publish the magazine in a timely manner.

Issues on Publishing Ethics

  • Novelty in Biomedicine Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow its rules on how to deal with acts of misconduct.
  • Plagiarism: It may occur at each step including research, writing and publication. Any detection of plagiarism will treat according to COPE’s flowcharts and guidelines.
  • Image manipulating such as adjusting the contrast and/or brightness or color balance is appropriate if it is applied to the complete image. However, inappropriate manipulating such as obscuring, enhancing, deleting and/or introducing new elements into an image is not acceptable.
  • In this journal we follow the COPE flowchart for retraction of any published article.
  • Correction: Editorial-in-Chief has the authority of issuing a correction at any time.
  • Fabrication/Manipulation: Any manipulating or making up research data with the intention of giving a false impression will consider inappropriate and will treat according to COPE’s guidelines.

Reviewers’ Guidelines

Novelty in Biomedicine (NBM) Journal is a peer-reviewed, open access journal for rapid dissemination of the latest research  to a broad spectrum of readers.

Before reviewing articles in this journal, it is important for reviewers to pay attention to these points:

  • Have the sufficient conditions and time for a proper critical review.
  • The subject of the study be in their related field.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are expected to complete several tasks, including avoiding conflict of interest. Such conflicts can include financial interests, professional opportunism, or personal disagreements. As a main rule for reviewers, an individual must discuss any conflicts of interest to the editor and, if serious, simply abstain from reviewing. 

WAME   (http://wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals)

 ICMJE  (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three)


Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)reviewers “must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

COPE  (https://publicationethics.org/)


Reviewers should not be influenced by the political, religious and cultural tendencies of the writers and origin of the study.

Review reports

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in terms of technical and scientific validity. This refers to both the methods and analysis: the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions must be completely supported by the data. In addition, reviewers should check that author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics.


We try to provide rapid editorial decisions and publication. We, therefore, ask reviewers to provide a report promptly; ideally within 14 days of receiving a manuscript. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to notify the Editorial Board Member and the publishing office so we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, alternative reviewers will replace.

Final recommendations

Following options are available for final recommendations:

  • Accepted as it is
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Not accepted
  • More suitable for publication in another journal

Recommendations should be supported in comments/suggestion section based on the content of the manuscript.