Bio Integration

BIOI subjects all submitted research articles to the highest standards of international peer review:

Research articles and other article types designated as externally peer reviewed in the journal’s Article Types guidance are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified external experts who are not members of the journal Editorial Board. Editorials and News and Views are normally subject to editorial review rather than external peer review. Other commentary or opinion-based content may be sent for external peer review at the discretion of the editors where appropriate.
The assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided.
An Editorial Board Member with appropriate subject expertise is assigned to each manuscript that proceeds to peer review and manages the external peer-review process.
The assigned Editorial Board Member selects at least two suitably qualified external reviewers based on their relevant knowledge and expertise.
For submissions to Special Issues, the Guest Editor manages the external peer-review process in place of the assigned Editorial Board Member and provides a recommendation based on the reviewers’ reports. The assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.
For regular submissions, the Executive Editor oversees the editorial process, conducts the initial editorial assessment, and, following peer review, makes an editorial recommendation to the assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief.
After the pre-check is complete, the manuscript is sent to the Executive Editor of the journal for for initial editorial assessment.. If the Executive Editor determines during the initial editorial assessment that the manuscript is of insufficient quality to proceed to external peer review or falls outside the scope of the journal, the Executive Editor may reject the manuscript without external peer review. For manuscripts that proceed to external peer review, the assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision following consideration of the editorial recommendation. If the Executive Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, the manuscript will be assigned to an Editorial Board Member who is familiar with the topic of this manuscript. Note: If the manuscript is written by the Executive Editor, the manuscript will be handled and inspected by the Co-Editors-in-Chief.If the manuscript is submitted by a Co-Editor-in-Chief, it will be handled by the Executive Editor in accordance with the journal’s Conflict of Interest Policy.
The journal uses a single-blind peer review process. We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
BIOI subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journal. Our readers will always be informed about how the research is funded and our relationships with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE recommendations.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

Reviewer Selection

The following criteria are applied when selecting external reviewers:

Reviewers must have appropriate subject expertise relevant to the manuscript.
Reviewers must have no actual or potential conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript.
Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors.
Reviewers should not have co-authored publications with any of the authors within the previous three years.
Reviewers should have a relevant and demonstrable publication record in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers should hold an appropriate recognised academic, clinical, research or professional affiliation.

Reviewer Standards and Expected Conduct

Reviewers who accept an invitation to review a manuscript are expected to:

have the necessary expertise to assess the quality, validity and relevance of the manuscript;
provide a timely, substantive and constructive review report;
remain responsive throughout the peer-review process;
act objectively, professionally and ethically;
maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; and
comply with the journal’s Conflict of Interest Policy and all applicable Editorial Policies.

The following points are considered during the review process:

1. Is the manuscript suitable for BIOI? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

2. Are the results and conclusions well-supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

3. Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

For information on our Conflict of Interest Policy for reviewers please click here.

5. Special Issues

Special Issue submissions follow the same rigorous peer-review standards as regular submissions. Guest Editors manage the peer-review process for submissions to their Special Issue, including the selection of at least two suitably qualified external reviewers, and provide recommendations based on the reviewers’ reports. All final publication decisions are made by the assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision to reject and decline resubmission by contacting the Editorial Office. An appeal must be submitted within three months of the date of the decision and must include a detailed justification addressing the reviewers’ and/or editors’ comments point-by-point. Appeals submitted after this period will not normally be considered.

The appeal, manuscript and relevant editorial and peer-review materials will be referred to an unconflicted Editorial Board Member who was not involved in the original decision. The assigned Editorial Board Member will independently assess the appeal and provide an advisory recommendation.

The recommendation may be to uphold the original rejection, reconsider the manuscript, or obtain further external peer review. The assigned Co-Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and advisory recommendation and make the final decision.

A rejection following completion of the appeals process is final and will not be subject to further appeal.

BIO Integration is indexed in EBSCO, EMBASE, Scopus, CAS, DOAJ, Research4Life, Ulrich’s web, OCLC, WorldCat, Primo Central (Ex Libris), Sherpa Romeo, CNKI Scholar (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Summon Databases.