Double Blind Peer Review
APBS follows double-blind peer review. Throughout the review process, the identities of both the reviewer and author are not disclosed to each other. The author(s) should ensure that their manuscripts should not disclose their identity in any way. To do so, they are responsible to maintain their anonymity according to the following guidelines:
- Submit the title page as a separate file with the title, principal author’s and co-authors name and institutional affiliations, complete address of corresponding author including cellphone/landline number and email address. Acknowledgements are to be added on the same title page, which can be transferred to the manuscript after the completion of the review process.
- The manuscript should not include any names or affiliations anywhere.
- To refer to your own work in the manuscript, use neutral phrases. Replace phrases like “as we have shown before” with “as has been shown before”.
- Ensure that the figures do not contain any author names.
- Remove any author names, from submitted files’ metadata and ensure document properties are also anonymized.
It is obligatory for authors to ensure that they have written entirely original works, and appropriately attributed and cited while paraphrasing the work and/or words of others. Author(s) must check any possible chances of similar text before submitting the manuscript. As a policy, APBS allows Similarity Index (SI) of not more than 19%. Also, please note that if a manuscript with overall low SI but having a higher SI from single source (5%) will be returned to author(s) for revisions. Likewise, a manuscript having overall high SI with various low similarity sources will also be returned to author(s). For information on editorial process, click HERE.
Open Access Policy
APBS is an open access research journal and therefore, all articles published in APBS are available for free without any subscription, with unlimited access to full-text of all articles. The articles are available freely worldwide under an open access license. Full articles or parts of article including graphics, data and tables and supplements are available free of charge to re-use under the condition that original publication is correctly cited and quoted without any ambiguity. All articles published in APBS will be covered under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited. The Corresponding Author retains ownership of the copyright of the published work. To learn more about the licensing provision, please click HERE.
Possible Reasons for Rejections
Your manuscript can be rejected for many reasons but these can generally be divided into technical and editorial reasons.
Technical reasons usually require more work such as further experiments or analysis before your work can be published. Technical reasons for rejection include:
- Incomplete data such as too small a sample size or missing or poor controls;
- Poor analysis such as using inappropriate statistical tests or a lack of statistics altogether;
- Inappropriate methodology for answering your hypothesis or using old methodology that has been surpassed by newer, more powerful methods that provide more robust results;
- Weak research motive where your hypothesis is not clear or scientifically valid, or your data does not answer the question posed;
- Inaccurate conclusions on assumptions that are not supported by your data.
Editorial reasons for rejection include:
- Out of scope for the journal;
- Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the journal;
- Research ethics ignored such as consent from patients or approval from an ethics committee for animal research;
- Lack of proper structure or not following journal formatting requirements;
- Lack of the necessary detail for readers to fully understand and repeat the authors’ analysis and experiments;
- Lack of up-to-date references or references containing a high proportion of self-citations;
- Has poor language quality such that it cannot be understood by readers;
- Difficult to follow logic or poorly presented data;
- Violation of publication ethics.