Instructions for Reviewers

The Virosa Journal of Quantum Biology and Biomedicine (VJQBB) relies on the expertise, integrity, and commitment of its reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing. The journal values the critical role reviewers play in evaluating scientific rigor, ensuring ethical compliance, and strengthening the quality of submitted research. These guidelines provide a clear framework to support reviewers throughout the evaluation process.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are essential contributors to the advancement of scientific knowledge in quantum biology, quantum medicine, molecular biophysics, and related interdisciplinary fields. By providing objective, constructive, and timely assessments, reviewers help authors refine their work and assist the editorial board in making informed decisions. Review reports should reflect accuracy, fairness, and a deep understanding of the subject matter, contributing positively to the scientific community.

Review Process and Expectations

All manuscripts submitted to VJQBB undergo a double-blind peer review to ensure impartiality. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts and are expected to evaluate the submission solely on its scientific merit, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviews should be completed within the recommended time frame stated in the invitation email, typically within two to three weeks. Reviewers unable to meet the deadline should notify the editorial office promptly.

The journal requests reviewers to provide a balanced critique, highlighting both strengths and areas requiring improvement. Reports should include clear recommendations such as acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Comments for authors should be courteous, specific, and aimed at improving clarity, accuracy, and scientific value. Confidential remarks may be shared with the editors where necessary.

Evaluation Criteria

When assessing a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider its contribution to the field of quantum biology and biomedicine, the originality of its research questions, and the robustness of its experimental, computational, or theoretical methodology. Clarity of presentation, logical organization, and alignment with journal standards are essential factors.

Reviewers should assess whether the abstract accurately summarizes the study, whether the introduction establishes a clear context, and whether the methods are sufficiently detailed to allow replication. Results should be coherent, supported by figures or tables, and statistically or computationally valid. The discussion should interpret findings meaningfully and address limitations. References must be relevant, current, and properly cited.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must adhere to the highest ethical principles. Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or stored beyond what is necessary for the review. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest such as financial ties, collaborations, or personal relationships that may influence objectivity. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate specific aspects of the manuscript, they should inform the editorial office.

Reviewers are expected to identify unethical practices such as plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate submissions, human or animal research without ethical approval, or significant methodological flaws. Any suspected misconduct must be reported directly to the editors in confidence.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The double-blind review process protects both authors and reviewers. Reviewers must ensure that comments do not reveal their identity or personal information. Manuscripts and associated materials must remain confidential and may not be used for personal research or shared with colleagues without explicit permission from the editorial office.

Reviewer Conduct and Professionalism

Reviews should be written respectfully, focusing on scientific content rather than personal criticism. Constructive feedback is essential; reviewers are encouraged to provide actionable suggestions that support authors in enhancing the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work. Criticism should be evidence-based, precise, and framed in supportive language.

Timeliness is equally important. If circumstances prevent the reviewer from completing the evaluation within the given time frame, the editorial team must be informed immediately so that alternative reviewers can be assigned.

Submitting the Review

Reviewers may submit their evaluations through the journal’s online review system or via email, depending on the instructions provided in the review invitation. Each review should include:

  • A detailed critique for the authors

  • A clear recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject)

  • Confidential comments to the editor, if necessary

  • An assessment of ethical compliance and scientific integrity

Reviews should be thorough yet concise, aiming to support editorial decisions and contribute to improving the manuscript.

Recognition and Appreciation

VJQBB values the significant time and expertise reviewers contribute to the journal. Although the journal does not offer financial incentives, the contribution of reviewers is formally acknowledged through certificates, annual acknowledgment statements, and consideration for editorial board opportunities.

Contact Information

For assistance with review assignments, technical issues, or questions related to reviewer guidelines, reviewers may contact the editorial team at [email protected] or use the support form available on the website