For editors
Editors Guidelines
An editor decides what enters the record and on what evidence. These guidelines set out how that judgment is exercised, and what it must stay free of.
- ISSN 2374-9431
- Publisher Open Access Pub
- Access Open access
- Review Peer-reviewed
Handling a manuscript
The sequence below is the same for every submission, whatever its evidence type.
01
Assess scope first
Decide whether the question belongs to the journal’s remit before considering anything else. The boundary is set out in the Aims and Scope. Subject eligibility and the strength of a claim are separate judgments.
02
Screen for completeness and integrity
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Check that declarations, ethical approvals and data statements are present, and read any similarity report in context rather than against a fixed percentage.
03
Select reviewers on expertise
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Match reviewers to the evidence in the manuscript: a computational submission needs a reviewer who can read the method, not only the biology. Avoid reviewers with a competing interest, a recent collaboration or a shared institution.
04
Weigh the reviews, do not count them
Reviews are advice. Where they disagree, read the arguments against the manuscript rather than tallying recommendations, and seek a further opinion when the disagreement is substantive.
05
Decide, and give reasons
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Tell the authors what the decision rests on, in terms they can act on.
Independence and confidentiality
These are the obligations that make an editorial decision worth anything.
Independent of commercial considerations
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, membership, editorial or reviewer roles, and any paid service the publisher offers. Editors are not informed of the payment or membership status of a manuscript, and must not take it into account if they learn it.
Recusal
Editors recuse themselves from their own submissions and from any manuscript where they hold a competing interest. Those manuscripts are reassigned and handled independently.
Confidentiality
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it outside the review process, discuss it with anyone not handling it, or use its content before publication.
Double-blind handling
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Concerns after publication
Credible concerns are investigated with the authors and, where appropriate, their institution. Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern follow the Editorial Policies.
Working across the two domains
JBD publishes computational and biological evidence side by side, and an editor is often the only person who reads both halves of a submission.
- iAsk whether the method is described well enough to be repeated, and whether the data it used are identified.
- iiAsk whether the biological or clinical interpretation is supported by what was actually measured.
- iiiWhere a manuscript spans both, recruit reviewers for each side rather than expecting one reviewer to cover both.
- ivHold conclusions to the evidence: a result from a model system is a result from that system.
Journal of Bioinformatics and Diabetes · ISSN 2374-9431 · Published by Open Access Pub.