Guidelines for Reviewers

Canadian Journal of Biotechnology (CJB) considers the reviewers as an integral part of the journal since they play the most important role in maintaining the quality of the journal. In addition, the editorial board members (EB) are also equally important in the peer-review process since they play a crucial role in identifying the relevant reviewers. Both the reviewers and EB members act as the supporting pillars of the journal who help the journal management in the peer-review process of the submitted research papers. CJB is fortunate in having an elite group of EB members with the help of whom, it is in the process of preparing a database of relevant subject matter experts as reviewers. The assigned reviewers are expected to submit their comments to the editorial office by checking one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without any revision
  • Accept after minor revision
  • Major revision required
  • Reject

The journal never discloses the names of the reviewers since it gives a fair opportunity to the reviewers to give unbiased comments on the quality of the manuscript.

Selection of Reviewers

Selection of reviewers for a submitted manuscript is done with the help of the editor-in-chief and/or editorial board members. The journal management is also in the process of creating a database of the reviewers. Selection of reviewers is carried out on the basis of domain expertise. The authors are also asked to suggest some potential reviewers for their manuscripts. A maximum of one reviewer from that list is selected given that his/her expertise closely matches the domain of the manuscript.

Instructions for the Reviewers

Assigned reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the assignment. The review must be conducted without any bias and any type of personal conflict with the author must not affect the quality of the review.

The manuscript received for reviewing is a confidential document and must not be shared with anyone. The reviewer is not authorized to use any data/information present in the manuscript.

As per the policy of the journal, a reviewer is expected to complete the review process within 03 weeks’ time. It is imperative to complete the review within the given time-frame to ensure the timeliness and reliability of the process.

All the reviewer reports are assessed by the editor-in-chief who makes a final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. In case the editor-in-chief is not available, any member from the rest of the editorial board is contacted. The decision is drawn solely on the basis of the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. If there is a conflict between the review reports, the decision shared by the majority of the reviewers is considered final. If there is no majority, the editor-in-chief and/or an editorial board member takes the final decision.

Reviewers should provide elaborate and specific comments, especially if the recommendation is to reject the manuscript.

If major revision is recommended by the reviewer(s), authors’ feedback along with the revised manuscript is sent to the reviewers again for their opinion(s).

The journal management can be contacted through email,