Peer Review Process
The International Journal of Embryo Cryobiology and Reproductive Sciences follows a structured peer review process to support the quality, originality, scientific reliability, and ethical standards of published research. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by the editorial team and, where appropriate, independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The manuscript should comply with the journal's author guidelines and include all required information and supporting documents.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, the manuscript may undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine:
- Whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope.
- Whether the submission is complete.
- Whether the research has sufficient scientific relevance.
- Whether the manuscript meets basic quality requirements.
- Whether originality or plagiarism concerns are present.
- Whether applicable ethical requirements have been addressed.
- Whether authorship and conflict of interest information is provided.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors before peer review.
3. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts suitable for peer review may be assigned to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically relevant assessments of the manuscript.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers may evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and novelty
- Scientific significance
- Research methodology
- Accuracy and reliability of results
- Quality of data analysis
- Relevance to the field
- Clarity of presentation
- Quality and relevance of references
- Ethical considerations
- Overall contribution to reproductive sciences
5. Reviewer Reports
Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to assist the editorial team in evaluating the manuscript. Authors may be asked to clarify methodological details, address scientific concerns, improve presentation, or provide additional supporting information.
6. Editorial Decision
Following the review process, the possible editorial decisions may include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The final decision is made by the editorial team based on the manuscript, reviewer comments, and overall editorial assessment.
7. Revision Process
When revisions are requested, authors should:
- Carefully address all reviewer and editorial comments.
- Clearly explain the changes made.
- Provide a point-by-point response where appropriate.
- Submit the revised manuscript within the requested timeframe.
- Highlight or clearly identify significant changes where requested.
A revised manuscript may be sent for further review when necessary.
8. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for peer review should be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.
9. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers may be asked to decline a review where a significant conflict exists.
10. Ethical Review Practices
Reviewers and editors should be alert to potential concerns involving:
- Plagiarism
- Duplicate publication
- Fabrication or falsification
- Image or data manipulation
- Inappropriate authorship
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Unethical research involving human participants, embryos, gametes, animals, or biological materials
Serious concerns may be investigated in accordance with appropriate publication ethics practices.
