Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific value of all submitted manuscripts. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards
  • Adherence to the author guidelines

Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria may be returned without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Research experience
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Clarity of writing and structure
  • Accuracy and robustness of data analysis
  • Ethical compliance
  • Contribution to the field
  • Adequacy of references and background

Reviewers provide:

  • Confidential comments to the editorial team
  • Constructive comments to the authors

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to:

  • Accept
  • Request minor revisions
  • Request major revisions
  • Reject
  • Request resubmission for a new review round

Authors must submit:

  • A revised manuscript with highlighted changes
  • A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Revised versions may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers or additional reviewers.

 

5. Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential:

  • Reviewers must not share, cite, or use manuscript content
  • Editorial staff handle submissions with full confidentiality
  • Manuscripts are not discussed outside the editorial workflow

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback
  • Avoid personal or inappropriate comments
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical concerns
  • Complete the review within the assigned timeframe

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline reviewing if they have:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors
  • Institutional affiliation overlap
  • Financial or personal conflict
  • Any situation that may compromise impartiality

8. Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript lies exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s editorial standards.

9. Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal if they believe:

  • A reviewer made a factual error
  • A misunderstanding affected the decision
  • The peer review process was not properly followed

Appeals are carefully reviewed by the editorial board, and the final decision is binding.

10. Ethical and Professional Standards

The journal adheres to international peer review principles and follows the guidelines of: