Peer Review Process

The journal (IJABIM) has adopted a double-blind peer review policy. In the reviewing process, there are at least two reviewers for each manuscript in the related topic. In addition, author(s) can also propose the candidate of reviewers. Three weeks will be needed for the reviewers to complete one round reviewing process.

Generally, the candidate of reviewers will be chosen based on their reputation in the international publication number and quality. In the next step, the editor sends the invitation letter to each candidate. After they confirm their availability for the reviewing process, the editor creates an account for each reviewer and sends the manuscript by email or system.

All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientif ic quality of the paper. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final. 



The peer review process can be broadly summarized into several steps below. 


1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via our OJS online system. For contributors who have difficulties to register on the OJS, kindly email us at

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement according to the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers.

5. Review Process

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may reject without further consideration. If there is none, the reviewer will examine the paper thoroughly, as well as taking notes as to build a detailed point-by-point review. This review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation of acceptance or a request for revision (usually marked as either major or minor) prior further reconsideration.

6. Review Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

7. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

8.  Final Process

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.