About the Journal
- Focus and Scope
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Criteria for acceptance
- English language, scientific writing, and figures quality
- Plagiarism Policy and Screening
- Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
- Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
- Research involving human participants or animals
- Informed consent
- Corrections, Retractions, Notes of Concern
Focus and Scope
The BJBMS reaches readers across a wide range of medical disciplines. The journal publishes basic and translational/clinical research submissions in all biomedical specialties, including Genetics and Molecular biology, Immunology, Microbiology, Pathology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Anatomy, Biomaterials, new and emerging research and diagnostic methods, new and emerging medical entities, and others.
Peer Review Process
Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing. This decision is made within 1-3 days.
If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:
- Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
- Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
- Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
- Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following decisions: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject. This decision is usually made within 30 days from the submission date.
If the Editor recommends "Publish Unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication. The manuscript is then assigned a DOI number and is published within 5 days in the Advanced online section of the Journal and in PubMed.
If the Editor recommends "Consider after Minor Changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted. The revised manuscript has to be submitted within two weeks. If you think you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office.
If the Editor recommends "Consider after Major Changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript within three months. Submission later than that will be regarded as a new submission that will go through the complete review process from the beginning. If you think you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office.
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are. Without the significant contributions made by peer reviewers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.
BJBMS is published continuously throughout the year. Upon acceptance articles are first published Advanced Online and Ahead of Print in PubMed, then the articles are collected in issues four times per year: in February, May, August, and November. Additionally, supplement issues may be published upon the Editorial board decision.
Articles published in Advanced Online section are posted at the "Post Author Correction" stage of production. A Post Author Correction article is a peer-reviewed article that contains the author's and editorial office's proofreading corrections. However, these articles will be reviewed one additional time before the publication of the final version. Association of Basic Medical Sciences, the editors and authors, and their respective employees are not responsible or liable for the use of any potentially inaccurate or misleading data, opinion, or information that may be contained within the articles found in the published advanced online section the BJBMS Web site.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Articles published in the Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences are permanently stored in full text in PubMed Central, CLOCKSS, LOCKSS. In addition, abstracts are permanently stored at Web of Science (SCIE), PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, DOAJ. Many reputable libraries also index BJBMS contents. Complete full-text archives are permanently available at the Journal's website www.bjbms.org.
Criteria for acceptance
The BJBMS can publish only about 12% of the more than 800 submissions received per year. Submitted manuscripts may be rejected without detailed comments after an initial review by the editorial board if the manuscripts are considered inappropriate or of insufficient scientific priority for publication in the BJBMS. All other manuscripts undergo a complete review by consulting editors or other selected experts. Criteria for acceptance by the BJBMS include originality, the validity of data, clarity of writing, strength of the conclusions, and the potential importance of the work to the field of basic (preclinical) sciences. Submitted manuscripts will not be reviewed if they do not conform to standard English usage and the Instructions for authors, which are based on "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (http://www.icmje.org/).
English language, scientific writing, and figures quality
BJBMS imposes high English language and scientific medical writing standards, i.e., style, clarity, the flow of information, readability, terminology, and other writing aspects.
For scientifically sound articles, accepted for publishing, but with less than optimal English language and writing, authors will be informed about the necessity of editing. Authors will be requested to correct the technical (language and writing) aspects, preferably by a native English speaking editor or a professional editing service, and to provide a certificate of editing and scientific writing for the manuscript. Else, authors may choose to arrange the paid language editing and scientific writing with the Journal's collaborators.
The Journal publishes only high-quality figures. The content of the figures (graph or composite figures quality, image colors, brightness and contrast, font legibility, spelling errors) as well as figure resolution, have to be of high quality. If the figures are suboptimal, the authors will be asked to improve the figures. If the authors are not able to improve the figures themselves, they may use the paid figure editing with the Journal's external collaborators.
Plagiarism Policy and Screening
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed, and they will be dealt with according to the COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines)
This Journal uses a Crosscheck/iThenticate software for the detection of the text-similarity and overlapping of the submitted manuscripts with published literature.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the "Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines" developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). The International Standards for Editors and Authors were developed at the 2nd WCRI (see http://publicationethics.org/resources/international-standards-for-editors-and-authors).
Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author who may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research report in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement or observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work. Although an author may not feel there is any conflict, the disclosure of relationships and interests provides a more complete and transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
- Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
- Honoraria for speaking at symposia
- Financial support for attending symposia
- Financial support for educational programs
- Employment or consultation
- Support from a project sponsor
- Position on advisory board or board of directors or other types of management relationships
- Multiple affiliations
- Financial relationships, for example, equity ownership or investment interest Intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights)
- Holdings of spouse or children that may have a financial interest in the work
Also, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research. The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors. In author collaborations where formal agreements for representation allow it, it is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors. The form can be downloaded here: ICMJE form
Research involving human participants or animals
1) Statement of Human Rights When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
The following statements should be included in the Declaration of interest section, before the References section:
|Ethical approval||Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.|
|For retrospective studies||Ethical approval: For this type of study formal consent is not required.|
2) Statement on the Welfare of Animals The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
For studies with animals, the following statement should be included in the Declaration of interest section, before the References section:
|Ethical approval||Ethical approval: All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.|
|If applicable (where such a committee exists)||Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.|
If articles do not contain studies with human participants or animals by any of the authors, please select one of the following statement:
- Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken.
Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt.
For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
The following statement should be included:
|Informed consent||Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.|
|If identifying information about participants is available in the article||Informed consent: Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.|
Corrections, Retractions, and Notes of concern
Corrections are published upon request and after editorial review. Retractions are published upon request of authors or their institutions and may also be published by the Journal following a determination of scientific misconduct. Notes of Concern are published in response to editorial concerns relating to scientific or publishing misconduct by authors or reviewers or to alert the scientific community of an ongoing investigation.
Revised: January 2020