The EuroBiotech Journal

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

Role of peer reviewers

Peer review assists the Editors in evaluating the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, reporting quality, ethical acceptability, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Reviews should be evidence-based, constructive, specific, respectful, and focused on the scholarly content.

Independence and conflicts of interest

Reviewers must be independent of the manuscript and its authors. Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, competitive, collaborative, institutional, or other relationship that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, impartiality. A reviewer who cannot provide an independent assessment should decline the invitation.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information from a submission for personal or professional advantage. Reviewer identities are confidential and are not disclosed to authors.

Review timeframe

The journal normally asks reviewers to complete an accepted review assignment within approximately two to three weeks. A reviewer who cannot meet the requested timeframe should inform the editorial office promptly so that an extension or alternative reviewer can be arranged.

Review content and objectivity

Reviewers should assess whether the research question is relevant and original; whether methods, analyses, results, and conclusions are scientifically appropriate; whether reporting is sufficiently complete; whether ethical requirements appear to have been met; and whether relevant literature is appropriately cited. Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. Recommendations should be supported by clear scholarly reasons.

Research-integrity concerns

Reviewers should alert the Editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data or image manipulation, inappropriate citation practices, ethical concerns, undisclosed conflicts, or substantial overlap with other work of which they are aware. Reviewers should report concerns to the journal rather than investigate authors independently.

Use of generative AI and automated tools

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, data, supplementary files, or editorial correspondence to public or third-party generative AI systems. Generative AI must not be used to create the substantive scientific assessment or recommendation. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their reports. Any permitted technical assistance must not compromise confidentiality and remains subject to human judgment.

Recommendation and editorial decision

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not by themselves constitute the final decision. When reviewers provide materially contradictory recommendations, the journal invites one or more additional independent reviewers before the Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision in accordance with the journal Peer Review Policy.