All types of contributed articles as well as reviews are peer-reviewed in the Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology (JMB). All forms of published corrections may also be peer-reviewed in principle at the discretion of the editors. For any general questions and comments about the peer review process, or our editorial polices that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us at email@example.com. Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief.
Criteria for publication
We are currently receiving many more submissions than we can publish. Therefore, we ask reviewers and editors to be more critical to the given manuscript. To avoid accumulation of manuscripts to-be-published and the subsequent delay of publication of valuable findings, the number of the incorporated articles has been gradually increased, with the acceptance rate decreasing during the last three years. To be published in JMB, a manuscript should meet our general criteria:
It must provide strong evidence for its conclusions.
It must be of novelty and significance to the related fields.
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer reviewers, only those papers deemed by most of our editors to not meet our criteria in terms of scientific merit as well as overall styles are rejected promptly without review. These decisions are also based on informal advice from specialists in the field. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our audience are sent for formal review, typically to two ad hoc reviewers.
The editors then make the first decision based on the reviewers’ comments as follows: Accept, with or without editorial revisions; Request the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is made; Reject.
We do not release editors’ identities to authors in some cases, to ensure that fair and just criticisms are made, taking into consideration the cultural characteristics in Korea. We also do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers in principle in any case. Unless they feel strongly otherwise, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor, or if this is not practicable, then we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has inadvertently revealed his or her identity to the author. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities.