Our Reviewers
Version 1.0 · Effective from 10 August 2026
Peer review at JQBio is a collaborative act of scholarship. Our reviewers are independent experts who help us assess whether a manuscript is sound, novel, and suitable for the journal. We set clear timelines, protect confidentiality, and treat reviewer reports as recommendations in a dialogue between authors, editors, and the scientific community.
Reviewer Agreement & Deadlines
When a reviewer accepts an assignment, they enter a two-way collaboration with the editorial office. We value their time and expertise, and we commit to clear expectations from the outset.
- Deadlines are never shorter than 30 days. We believe careful evaluation requires adequate time, and we do not ask reviewers to complete reports under unreasonably short windows.
- Deadlines are never longer than 90 days from the date the reviewer receives the first complete manuscript content. This keeps the process fair to authors while respecting the workload of our reviewers.
- Changes are communicated in advance. If anything in the process delays the review — such as additional material from the authors or an editor recusal — we aim to give reviewers plenty of notice so they can adjust their schedule.
- Confidentiality is mutual. Reviewers agree not to share manuscript content or their report with third parties. The editorial office in turn protects reviewer identity and handles all feedback through our secure, tamper-proof workflow.
- Terms are non-exhaustive and binding. Reviewers must agree to uphold these principles before accepting an assignment. The agreement exists to protect authors, reviewers, and the integrity of the scholarly record.
AI & Review Ethics
We minimise the use of artificial intelligence in the review process. This choice is rooted in our obligations to data security and privacy, our ethical standards, and the operational realities of AI-assisted evaluation. We expect reviewers to do the same.
Reviewers must not input manuscript content into AI services, chatbots, or automated analysis tools unless they first declare that they have done so. If any part of the review process involves AI, the reviewer must disclose it transparently so the editorial office can assess whether the evaluation remains sound and confidential.
These terms are not exhaustive. They set the minimum standard of care we expect from everyone who evaluates work on our behalf. Reviewers agree to them when they accept an assignment, and we monitor compliance as part of our quality-control process.
Our position: AI is a useful tool under strict scope and instructions, not unlike spell-checking or plagiarism-detection software. But it cannot replace the reasoning, judgment, and accountability that a human reviewer brings to the evaluation of new scientific work.
Why Human Reviewers Matter
We work with human reviewers because evaluation is more than pattern matching. It is a conversation about what is new, what is uncertain, and what a contribution means for the field.
- Human reviewers know science intuitively and personally. They recognise context, motive, and the history of a research question in ways that AI does not. They want to make science known; AI is simply a process that follows instructions.
- AI surfaces information by similarity, not reasoning. If a manuscript presents hypotheses that differ from established knowledge, AI's default tendency is to treat the new data as an error because it does not match the training distribution.
- Human reviewers can nurture novel hypotheses. When presented with an unusual or challenging claim, a human expert can encourage the authors to refine it, strengthen the evidence, develop the argument further or provide evidenced justification before suggesting removing the claim.
- AI follows instructions uncritically. You can tell an AI to review a manuscript less carefully and it will comply. A person who cares ethically about science will resist that instruction for the right reasons. AI cannot reason about right and wrong, ethical and unethical, or what is scientifically responsible.
- Copyright and data provenance matter. Most AI systems are trained on data whose provenance is not transparent. New research data is often carefully vetted by intellectual property specialists before submission. Feeding that material into opaque third-party services creates unnecessary legal and ethical risk.
- AI is best used as an assistant. Under the Journal's Okay use of AI, for example, checking spelling, AI can be helpful, provided its use does not compromise confidentiality or reasoning.
- Science evolves through a lineage of papers. Academics read, question, cite, disseminate, and discuss research in journal clubs. AI retrieves and prioritises what is abundant and easily accessible in its training data; it has no personal stake in the history of research.
Even if AI use is controlled and declared, we cannot be certain that its processes meet the requirements of data and research ethics. That is why we keep human reviewers at the centre of our evaluation process.
Reviewer Feedback as a Recommendation
Reviewer feedback is a formal stage in our publication flow; we do not progress a manuscript without the recommendations of the two reviewers that the Journal invites. Their reports inform the Editor's decision, but the recommendations are not the final verdict. In other words, a Reviewer's report presents the Journal with evidence and recommendations for the next steps to take with the manuscript.
We consider Reviewer reports as recommendations because peer review is a collaborative space. We encourage open dialogue between Authors, Reviewers, and Editors, and we expect Editors to weigh the evidence for each manuscript. This applies to Guest Editors as well. A recommendation to revise is an invitation to improve and the Journal expects Authors enthusiasm in engaging with the Reviewer feedback.
Authors receive Reviewer comments through the manuscript management system, where they can also see deadlines and decisions. The Editorial Office handles the communication so that Reviewer identities remain confidential. The final decision rests with the independent or Guest Editor, who is accountable for the outcome.
Due to the changing space of how other journal's value the input for voluntary Reviewers, like crediting Reviewer by name, JQBio remains committed to addressing this through the Peer-Review policy. The Journal's decision to include Reviewers names and affiliations, if done, will be done in accordance of the Editorial policies and Competing Interests policy.