All submissions to The Biol are first reviewed by the editor(s) and/or editorial board member(s) to decide if the manuscript is suitable for external expert evaluation. The manuscripts are also checked for plagiarism using industry-standard software before being sent for peer review. Manuscripts not passing these initial checks may be rejected or returned to the author(s) for revisions. Manuscripts that pass these checks will proceed to the peer-review process.

The Biol uses a single-blind review system, where the reviewers know the authors identities. Typically, at least two independent experts will review the manuscript, which may include members of the editorial board of The Biol. Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor(s) will decide and may consult with editorial board members if necessary. Multiple rounds of review may be applied to the manuscript as revisions are made. Authors can suggest reviewers and request that certain individuals not review their manuscripts. For more details, please refer to The Biol peer-review policy and other editorial policies.

Original articles, reviews (even if invited), short communications, virus notes, and case studies will always undergo peer review. The editor will review opinions and comments and may or may not go through external peer review. Once a decision is made, the editor(s) will inform the author(s) of any further instructions, if applicable. If revisions are requested, authors should follow the instructions within the suggested timeline. If the manuscript is rejected, the author(s) can appeal based on The Biol appeal policy. If accepted, the manuscript will proceed to the production stage, including copyediting.

The Biol uses a single-blind review model, where the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, but the review reports are not published online.

Each submission is assigned to an editor, who evaluates the manuscript to decide if it is suitable for peer review. If an editor is an author or has a conflict of interest, another editor or editorial board member oversees the peer review. Submissions that pass the initial evaluation are reviewed by at least two independent experts chosen by the handling editor. The editor(s) will decide based on the peer reviewers’ reports, which are shared with the authors and the decision. The editor(s) independently evaluate the reviewers’ feedback and are not required to follow the reviewers’ recommendations when deciding.

Authors can suggest potential peer reviewers by providing their contact details (such as institutional email) and/or verifying information like ORCID or Scopus ID in the cover letter. However, the editor can decide whether to consider these suggested reviewers. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues from their institution. Authors may also request that certain individuals not be asked to review their manuscripts.

Any request to exclude someone as a reviewer should be made in the cover letter, and the underlying reasons should be included. Again, the editor(s) may select an excluded reviewer.

The peer reviewers should read COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for best practices.