‘‘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.
Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers
Issues on Publishing Ethics
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:
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.
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.
Reviewers should not be influenced by the political, religious and cultural tendencies of the writers and origin of the study.
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.
Following options are available for final recommendations:
Recommendations should be supported in comments/suggestion section based on the content of the manuscript.