Journal Policy

Peer Review Process

The journal employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Every proposal submitted for publication is read at least by an editor, for an initial review. If the paper agrees with editorial policies and with a minimum quality level, is sent to two reviewers. The reviewers won't know the author's identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review.

Reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. Based on the reviewers' comments, the Editorial Board makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript, and communicates the author's decision, along with the referees' reports. Whether significant revisions are proposed, or accepted is dependent on whether the author can deal with those satisfactorily.

Open Access Policy

This journal is published under an Open Access license all its content is available free of charge, based on the principle that the publication of research promotes a wider global exchange of knowledge; This access is associated with a larger readership and a large number of cited works of the author.

The research literature is freely available on the public Internet, allowing any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, use them as provided or used data send to the Software for any other lawful purpose without financial, legal or technical impediments other than those inherent in Internet access itself.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their articles, after publication, to personal and/or institutional websites and to archive their articles in institutional or funder repositories to insure even greater public access. Supplementary material should also be included when applicable. In addition, authors are permitted to post pre-print versions of their articles to institutional websites, repositories, and similar (on the condition that all bibliographic information is also provided).

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The publication of a writer in a peer-reviewed journal is an important building block within the development of a coherent and revered network of knowledge. it`s the right way to reflect on the standard of the work of the authors so and also the establishments that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. it's therefore important to agree upon standards of expected moral behavior for all parties concerned in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society-owned.

Author's Duties:

Reporting Standards: Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate description of the work done as well as an objective discussion of its meaning. The underlying data must be correctly presented in the article. An article should have enough detail and references for others to copy the work. False or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention: Authors are also asked to provide the information in reference to a paper for editorial review, and will be prepared to provide public access to such data, if feasible, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for an affordable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should make sure that they are writing entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from publishing another‘s paper because of the author‘s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another‘s paper (without acknowledgment), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication: an author shouldn't, generally, publish manuscripts describing essentially equivalent research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting an equivalent manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is intolerable. Generally, an author shouldn't submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should tend to Authors should cite publications that are significant in determining the character of the reported work. Information obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with a third party, cannot be used or transmitted without the written permission of the source. Information obtained within the course of confidential services, like refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the specific written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study; all who have made significant contributions should be included as co-authors. If there are others who have participated in certain content studies. Aspects of scientific research must be recognized or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all eligible co-authors and non-inappropriate co-authors are included in the article, that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the article, and accepted its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, processes, or devices that pose unusual dangers in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or humans, the author must ensure that the manuscript includes a press release stating that each procedure has been carried out in accordance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines approved by acceptable institutional committees for publication within the manuscript indicating that consent to conduct experiments on humans has been obtained. of human subjects.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other conflicts of interest that could be construed to affect the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers/finds a serious error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they must notify or mail the journal editor or publisher immediately and work with the editor to withdraw or correct the article. From a third party that a printed work contains a major error, it is a requirement of the author to quickly withdraw or correct the article, or to provide proof to the editor of the correction of the first article.

Reviewer Duties:

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial choices and, through editorial conversation with the writer, may help the writer in enhancing the paper.

Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the studies stated in a manuscript or is aware that it is not possible to set off review could have to notify the editor and excuse himself from the evaluation process.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts acquired for review must be handled as confidential documents. They should now no longer be shown to or discussed with others besides as authorized via way of means of the editor.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviews need to be performed objectively. The author's personal grievance is inappropriate. Referees need to explicitly state their perspectives clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify applicable published work that has now no longer been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument was formerly reported should be followed by the applicable citation. A reviewer should additionally call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and every other published paper of which they have got private knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or thoughts obtained through peer review must be kept private and no longer used for personal advantage. Reviewers should now no longer consider manuscripts wherein they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or different relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions linked to the papers.

Editorial Board Duties:

The Innovative Research in Biotechnology follows guidelines based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication Decisions: The editor of a peer-reviewed Innovative Research in Biotechnology is in charge of deciding whether the articles submitted to the journal ought to be published. Confirmation of the study in question and its relevance to researchers and readers should make such decisions. The editor is additionally maneuvered by the policies of the journal's editorial board and affected by such legal needs as shall then be in impact relating to libel, plagiarism, and infringement of copyright.

Fair Play: The editor of a peer-reviewed journal should not be partial to matters such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial employees should not disclose any data about submitted manuscripts to anyone apart from the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, alternative editorial advisers, and also the publisher, as acceptable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Any unpublished material disclosed during a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research without written permission from the manuscript author. Any inside information or ideas gained through peer review are often kept strictly confidential and will not be used in any way.

Personal Benefit The editor must refrain from considering manuscripts in which they create a competitive conflict of interest (i.e., asking a co-editor, co-editor, or other members of the editorial board to submit a review and appearance), collaboration, or other relationships or associations with authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions related to writing. Publishers should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and post corrections if competing interests are disclosed after publication. be considered, such as a retraction or an expression of disgust.

Retraction of articles

The Journal follows the COPE guidelines for the Retraction of articles: It Can be found at the following link:

Retraction guidelines | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics

Plagiarism prevention

Innovative Research in Biotechnology does check the plagiarism of each submitted paper and contains a strict on plagiarism, all the articles are scanned or checked before publication, and if the article is found plagiarized so we reject it at any stage of the processing, and can't publish it on any condition.

Authors are strictly not allowed:

  • copied or published work executed by other scholars and presented as the author’s own findings.
  • word-for-word copying of fragments of any text (from a single phrase to several sentences) without proper quotation formatting;
  • slightly modified copied material (re-phrased sentences, changes in the word order, etc.) without proper quotation/reference formatting;
  • other people’s thoughts, ideas, or texts rendered in the author’s own words without providing proper references to the sources.

The author must provide references to his or her own previously published works.

Innovative Research in Biotechnology checks the plagiarism of submitted papers through Plagiarism Checker X and iThenticate software.