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 appropriately assigned Section Editor to assess:

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

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic editorial, scientific, ethical, or scope requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

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

Reviewer selection is based on:

Relevant subject expertise
Research experience and scholarly competence
Suitability for evaluating the manuscript
Absence of conflicts of interest
Independence from the authors and their institutions, where applicable

Both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential throughout the peer review process.

The journal may seek additional reviewers when reviewer reports are conflicting, insufficient, or when specialized expertise is required.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria, as applicable to the type of submission:

Originality and novelty
Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
Clarity of writing and organization
Accuracy and robustness of data analysis
Validity and interpretation of results
Ethical compliance
Contribution to the relevant field
Adequacy and relevance of the background and references
Overall scientific quality

Reviewers provide:

Confidential comments to the editorial team
Constructive comments to the authors

Reviewer comments should be objective, professional, specific, and focused on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback
Evaluate manuscripts independently and impartially
Avoid personal, discriminatory, or inappropriate comments
Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents
Not share, cite, reproduce, or use unpublished manuscript information for personal or professional purposes
Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, ethical concerns, or other forms of research misconduct to the editorial team
Complete reviews within the assigned timeframe or promptly inform the editorial office if an extension is required

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation to review if they have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

Recent collaboration with one or more authors
Close personal or professional relationships with the authors
Institutional affiliation that may compromise independence
Financial interests related to the manuscript
Direct academic or professional competition
Any other circumstance that could reasonably affect the reviewer’s objectivity

Reviewers are required to disclose relevant conflicts of interest to the editorial team.

6. Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential.

Reviewers and editorial staff must not:

Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals
Disclose the identities of authors or reviewers
Use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage
Discuss the manuscript outside the authorized editorial process

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must be handled confidentially.

7. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately assigned editor may decide to:

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

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and peer review of the manuscript.

8. Revision and Re-review

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

A revised manuscript with changes clearly identified or highlighted
A detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the same reviewers, additional reviewers, or the assigned editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

The editorial team may request additional revisions when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial standards.

9. Editorial Independence and Editorial Board Manuscripts

Editorial Board members, including the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Section Editors, are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as all other authors when submitting manuscripts to the journal.

An editor must not participate in the editorial evaluation, reviewer selection, decision-making, or other editorial handling of a manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest, including their own manuscript or a manuscript submitted by a close collaborator.

Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript. The assigned editor manages the peer review process independently and makes the editorial decision based on the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards.

The Editor-in-Chief does not make editorial decisions on their own manuscripts.

10. Final Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately assigned editor acting on behalf of the journal.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and peer review reports and are not determined solely by the recommendation of an individual reviewer.

11. Appeals

Authors may submit a written appeal if they believe that:

A reviewer or editor made a factual or substantive error
A misunderstanding materially affected the editorial decision
The peer review process was not properly followed
Relevant information was not adequately considered during the evaluation

Appeals should provide a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and, where applicable, supporting evidence.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision and has no conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript.

The journal may seek additional expert advice when necessary. The decision reached following an appeal is final.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript materials.

Reviewers must not upload, disclose, or otherwise share confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, or unpublished information with generative artificial intelligence tools or other external systems when doing so could compromise confidentiality or the integrity of the peer review process.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and recommendations contained in their review reports.

13. Ethical and Professional Standards

The Yemeni Journal of Life Sciences is committed to internationally recognized principles of responsible peer review and scholarly publishing.

The journal considers relevant guidance and recommendations from:

The journal expects all editors, reviewers, and authors to conduct themselves according to principles of integrity, confidentiality, fairness, objectivity, transparency, and professional responsibility throughout the peer review and publication process.