Focus and Scope
JABS is an open access, quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that covers all fundamental and molecular aspects of basic medical sciences. It emphasizes on providing the molecular studies of biomedical problems and mechanisms. Its target audience are biomedical scientists, biochemists, microbiology specialists, clinical laboratories, pharmaceutical industry, academic institutions, analytical scientists and management in government agencies.
JABS accepts full-length original articles relating to experimental and clinical research, scientific reviews, short scientific communications in the field of biological and medical sciences, analysis, commentaries and cutting-edge topics on bioethics and biomedical ethics.
Manuscripts are submitted online. If you have problem using our online system, manuscripts can be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
JABS operates online correspondence on paper status (acceptance/comments/rejection). Authors are also communicated regarding paper status through email within one week of manuscript submission.
Peer Review Process
JABS will peer review all manuscripts received for publication. Each manuscript that comes in will go through one of our editors in chief and one other editor to see if potentially suitable for JABS publication. After the first assessment based on manuscripts scientific domain and innovation, the editor in chief will send manuscripts for a single blind or double-blind review process depending on authors choice. Two or three reviewers will be assigned to a manuscript. Authors will be informed to choose review process and those who choose double blind will have to take measures for blinding their submissions. Calls are open for reviewers in the different fields JABS occupy. Our reviewer selection criteria will be based on scholarly experience, expertise and professional reputation.
JABS is published quarterly in the months of
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.
JABS reviewers guideline
Journal of Advances in Biomedical Studies (JABS) operates blind peer review system. Research publication in JABS depends solemnly on the validity and coherency of manuscripts as judged by peer reviewers and editors.
Reviewers are to consider the following points and indicate if revisions in manuscript are major or minor.
Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the authors should be easily identifiable and understood. It is useful to both the editors and authors if reviewers comment on the originality and importance of the study within the context of its field. If the research question is unoriginal because related work has been published previously, please give references. Reviewers should ask themselves after reading the manuscript if they have learnt something new and if there is a clear conclusion from the study.
2.Structure controlinvolves reviewing Data, Method, Discussion, Conclusion, Writing, Tables and figures.
Are the data sound and well controlled? Reviewers should bring to the notice of editors where inappropriate controls have been detected, indicating the reasons and suggesting alternative controls where appropriate.
Is the discussion and conclusion well balanced and supported by data? The interpretation should discuss the relevance of all the results in an unbiased manner.
Are the interpretations overly positive or negative? Conclusions drawn from the study should be valid and result directly from the data shown, with reference to other relevant work as applicable.
Have the authors provided references wherever necessary? Reviewers should check if the used methods are appropriate and well described, and if sufficient details are provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work. If statistical analyses have been carried out, indicate whether or not they need to be assessed specifically by an additional reviewer with statistical expertise.
Comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods. Please comment on any improvements that could be made to the study design to enhance the quality of the results. Please give details if any additional experiments are required. If novel experimental techniques were used please pay special attention to their reliability and validity.
Are there any adjustment on the writing, organization, tables and figures? Although the editorial team may also assess the quality of the written English, please do comment if you consider the standard below that expected for a scientific publication. If the manuscript is organized in such a manner that it is illogical or not easily accessible to the reader please suggest improvements. Please provide feedback on whether the data are presented in the most appropriate manner; for example, is a table being used where a graph would give increased clarity? Are the figures of a high enough quality to be published in their present form?
3.Ethical concern: plagiarism and fraud can be dictated by reviewers. If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editorknow, citing the previous work as much detail as possible. It is very difficult to detect determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Other ethical concerns
For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Did the authors declare that they have received ethics approval and or patient consent for the study, where appropriate?
4.Timely review is important. Reviewers are recommended to inform the editor earlier of any inconveniency that could cause delay.
The contents of manuscripts sent for peer review should not be disclosed until it is formally published.
N.B: Reviewers should bear in mind the editorial standards of Journal of Advances in Biomedical Studies and call the attention of the editors if authors have not fully adhered to them.
After reviewing the manuscripts, reviewers are expected to communicate with the editor giving the summary of his or her reviewed work using the following points below
Explain your judgment
A manuscript revision is considered major if additional controls are required to support the claims; if the interpretations of the manuscript are not supported by adequate data; if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions; if inadequate methods and statistical errors have been used.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:
-Reject (explain reason in report)
-Accept without revision
-Revise (either major or minor)
Points to Consider
1. Avoid vague criticisms, try as much as possible to justify all criticisms by specific references to the text of the paper or to published literature.
2. Be critical. It is easier for an editor to overturn very critical comments than to overturn favorable comments.
3. Avoid repeating information from the paper, information like title and authors names, since this already appears elsewhere in the review form.
4. Always consider the Aims and Scope of the journal in your comments so as to be in accordance with journal policy.
5. Endeavour to give a clear recommendation.
6. Comments should be numbered for easy location by the authors.
7. Be specific - refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact regions where you wish changes to occur.
8. Avoid indications that could review your identity especially the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.
Biomedical consulting Agency, Ferrara Italy
JABS is an open access, bimonthly, peer-reviewed journal that covers all fundamental and molecular aspects of basic medical sciences, emphasizing on providing the molecular studies of biomedical problems and molecular mechanisms.Its target audience are Biomedical scientists, biochemists, microbiology specialists, clinical laboratories, pharmaceutical industry, academic institutions, analytical scientists and management in government agencies.
It accepts full-length original articles relating to experimental and clinical research, scientific reviews, short scientific communications in the field of biological and medical sciences, editors commentary and cutting-edge topics on bioethics and biomedical ethics.
Prof. Shamala Moodley (PhD)Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Mangosuthu University of Technology,South Africa
Franca Nneka Alaribe Nnadozie (PhD) Tshwane University of Technology, Arcadia 0001 Pretoria, South Africa.
Marco Manfrini (PhD) Biomedical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Italy; Computational Biology Researcher, Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Italy
Gabriel Chimezie Nnadozie (PhD) Moral Philosophy, Pontifical University Antonianum, Rome. Freelance Editor, MayAlf Media Center, Ferrara, Italy
Perpetua Emeagi (PhD) Immunology and physiology, Medical School of the Vrije University, Brussels, Belgium
Petrus Inyama (PhD) Medical Parasitology, University of Jos. Country Technical Manager, Abt Associates, Abuja, Nigeria
Remy Nnadozie (PhD) Applied Mathematics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Director of Research, Mangosuthu University of Technology, Durban, South Africa
Elisa Mazzoni (PhD) Pharmacology and Molecular Oncology, University of Ferrara, Clinical Research Associate, Medical Trials Analysis, Ferrara, Italy.