Peer Review Process

The Five-Step Editorial Workflow

1. Step 01

   Initial Desk Assessment

   7-day screen

   The Section Editorial Chair evaluates all incoming submissions for baseline quality and technical criteria, checked for Track and Scope alignment, screening for immediate biological utility and cross-disciplinary framework integration. Works containing purely speculative, non-applied physics or ungrounded metaphysical interpretations regarding quantum consciousness are rejected at this stage. Works passing this stage undergo additional quality assessments to ensure all relevant administrative information has been provided.

2. Step 02

   Double-Blind Evaluation

   2+ reviewers

   Once submitted manuscripts pass all initial checks, the Author submitted anonymised manuscripts are passed to a minimum of two independent, external peer reviewers within our global academic registry. Submissions are assessed strictly against five pillars: Quantum Inspired Alignment, Biological Systems Relevance, Reproducibility, Research Impact and Cross-Disciplinary Readership. Reviewers provide their assessment to Authors via the Editor as recommendations for publication.

3. Step 03

   Editorial Arbitration

   Accept / Revise / Reject

   The Section Chair compiles the independent reviewer recommendations to issue a formal determination: Accept without changes, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. Revised manuscripts undergo review by the original evaluation panel to guarantee compliance with all initial technical critiques.

4. Step 04

   Continuous Publications

   Immediate release

   Accepted manuscripts are immediately formatted using the JQBio accessible typography layout. Single Issues and Pre-Release Issues are fast-tracked publications and assigned their own ISBN (where applicable), establishing instant discovery and citable priority for the authors under our Continuous Publication model. Otherwise, any other work will be made available in the next Volume Series. Manuscripts intended as Pre-Prints are published immediately after being approved by the Editorial Chair.

5. Step 05

   Serial Compilation

   Volume indexing

   Digital publications are systematically compiled and indexed into formal chronological volumes and serial issues of the journal, fully preserving and carrying forward all metrics, citations, and permanent archival records. Pre-Release Issues if published before Volume publication are compiled into the Volume as agreed when the manuscript was first submitted.

6. Step 06

   Readmy Peer Review Programme

   New Style

   As part of the Readmy Peer Review Programme, Authors are given the option for the published Version of Record to undergo continuous peer review from all members of the scientific community via Readmy. This allows published articles to be continuously improved without impacting the Version of Record. All changes are tracked but not treated as traditional corrections at the post-publication stage. Participation is free for both Authors and Readers and does not impact traditional peer review where requested.

Broader Governance Principles

Reviewer Standards & the Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is central to everything JQBio publishes. We ask every reviewer to pursue two aims at the same time: to protect the integrity of the scientific record, and to help authors improve their work. A review that only recommends acceptance or rejection fulfils just one of these aims. Our editorial approach follows a stronger tradition, in which each review is a constructive exchange between peers.

What a review is for

A JQBio review is not a scorecard. Its purpose is to test whether a piece of research is sound, original, and worth the field's attention, while giving the authors something they can act on. A reviewer who flags a flaw without saying why it matters, or recommends acceptance without saying what convinced them, has left the job unfinished. We expect reports substantial enough that an author could rebuild the weaker parts of their argument from the reviewer's comments alone.

Readmy Peer Review Model (New Style)

Due to the growing need to make changes to the Peer Review model, JQBio is operating under a Hybrid-Classical Peer Review Model that allows the entire scientific community to submit feedback and scholarly recommendations to any Version of Record published on JQBio. This is optional for all Authors who sign up to the Readmy Peer Review Programme during the Peer Review stage. Where relevant, Authors also may consent to be part of the Readmy Reviewer Programme, where articles are assessed by human reviewers using an independent AI reviewing system (readmy.org) developed by PROTOCELL IO for JQBio. The combination of the two approaches is the hybrid model or New Style.

Ground every judgement in evidence

Assertions carry weight only when they are backed by something concrete — a methodological gap, an unsupported inferential leap, a result that contradicts prior literature, a statistical choice that doesn't fit the data. Reviewers should point to the specific passage, figure, or dataset in question, and where relevant, cite the literature that informs their critique. We also ask reviewers to separate the two kinds of feedback that too often get blurred together: changes that are necessary to support the paper's conclusions, and changes that would simply make good work better. Authors deserve to know which is which.

Cover the manuscript, not just the headline result

A thorough review moves through the research question and its originality, the significance of the contribution, the methodology and data quality behind it, the soundness of the analysis, how uncertainty is handled, whether the interpretation follows from the evidence, and whether the work is reproducible and clearly written. Reviewers are not expected to weigh in on every dimension with equal authority; we would rather receive a focused, expert assessment of the sections within a reviewer's competence than a superficial pass over the whole manuscript.

Turn criticism into a path forward

Identifying a weakness is the easy part; explaining its consequences and how it might be resolved is where a review earns its value. A comment on a statistical shortfall is far more useful paired with a proposed test or an alternative framing than left as a bare objection. Where reviewers see a gap, we encourage them to point toward what would close it; an additional analysis, a clarifying paragraph, a further experiment, a piece of literature the authors may have missed — rather than leaving the author to guess.

Report what works, not only what doesn't

Reviewers who focus solely on faults risk leaving authors with an inaccurate picture of their own paper and can obscure genuinely important contributions in the process. A JQBio review should be honest about the paper's real contribution, name what has been done well, and frame the weaknesses in the context of a paper that is, overall, being taken seriously as a piece of scholarship. This isn't about softening critique; it's about giving authors an accurate map of where their work stands.

Know the edges of your own expertise

No reviewer is equipped to judge every dimension of a manuscript with equal confidence, and pretending otherwise does authors a disservice. We expect reviewers to say plainly where their assessment should carry less weight, rather than issuing demands outside their field. Editors, in turn, are responsible for recognising these gaps and bringing in additional specialist opinion — through a third reviewer, a statistical consultant, or direct editorial expertise — wherever a manuscript's technical demands outrun the panel already assembled.

Peer review informs the decision

Reviewers are advisors to the editorial process, not voters in it. Where two reports diverge, the resolution is not a tally but a judgement call: editors weigh the reasoning behind each position, the evidence each reviewer marshals, and the seriousness of the concerns raised, before reaching a decision they can stand behind and explain to the author. This is one reason editorial independence matters as much as reviewer independence — someone has to be able to make the call when experts disagree in good faith.

Revision is a conversation, not only a formality

When a manuscript comes back for revision, authors are given a genuine opportunity to respond to the substance of each concern — to push back where they disagree, and to show precisely how they've addressed what they've accepted. Reviewers who raised the original concerns are often the best-placed people to judge whether a revision resolves them, and we frequently return revised manuscripts to the original panel for exactly that reason. The aim across this exchange is progression: each round should leave the manuscript measurably stronger, not simply re-litigate the first report.

Rigour and respect are not in tension

A review can be unsparing about the science and still be written with basic professional courtesy. We do not tolerate language that is dismissive, personal, or written to make a point about the reviewer rather than the research. Candour and respect are not trade-offs at JQBio — a report that is both exacting and considerate is simply a better piece of scholarly work than one that sacrifices either.

Confidentiality runs both ways

Everything about a submission — the manuscript itself, reviewer identities, reports, and the deliberations around them — stays inside the review process unless a paper is being handled under an explicit open-review track. Reviewers must flag any conflict of interest as soon as they become aware of it, and manuscript material should never be shared, discussed, or distributed outside the review process without the journal's permission. This protects authors' unpublished ideas as much as it protects the impartiality of the review itself.

AI use in review must preserve confidentiality

Manuscripts under review contain unpublished research that authors have entrusted to the review process in confidence, and that trust does not extend to third-party AI tools by default. Reviewers must not upload manuscript text, data, or figures to external generative AI systems in ways that could expose confidential material beyond the journal's control. Where a reviewer does make limited, permitted use of AI in preparing their evaluation, this should be declared transparently as part of the report, consistent with JQBio's broader AI policy for editors and reviewers. Where Authors have consented to be part of the Readmy Reviewer Programme (see AI policy), works are handled exclusively within our ethical AI Peer Review system (readmy.org) developed for JQBio by PROTOCELL IO.

Timeliness is part of the standard

A rigorous review delivered too late loses much of its value to the author waiting on it. Reviewers are expected to complete their assessment within the agreed window, and to tell the handling editor as early as possible if that timeline is at risk, so the process can adapt—reassigning, extending, or seeking a third opinion—without leaving authors in limbo.

"Peer review at JQBio is a working partnership between reviewer and author: rigorous enough to protect the integrity of the published record, and generous enough in time, explanation, and expertise to leave every paper in better quality than when it arrived."

Fast-Track Editorial Processing

An optional service for accelerated dissemination timelines, particularly for fast-moving corporate, industrial, and venture-backed deep-tech research tracks and bound by strict ethical boundaries.

Zero influence on outcomes

Prioritises administrative coordination of peer review and scheduling only; no influence on reviewer selection, editorial decisions, or acceptance outcomes.

Process integrity preserved

Does not compress, alter, or bypass any stage of double-blind review. Fast-tracked manuscripts face identical benchmarks of physics rigor, biological relevance, and reproducibility.

Standard pipeline protected

Runs on dedicated administrative resources funded by the fast-track premium, on an independent operational track — standard-rate submissions are never delayed or deprioritised.

Conflict of Interest

All participants in the publication ecosystem including authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest upon submission or assignment.

Authors

Must declare all financial, personal, or institutional relationships that could bias their work: corporate funding, equity, pending or granted patents, and consulting fees tied to the manuscript's subject.

Reviewers & editors

Must immediately recuse themselves upon detecting a conflict: recent collaboration history, shared institutional affiliation, co-investment, or direct commercial competition.

Enforcement

Undisclosed conflicts found post-publication are investigated under COPE guidelines and may result in a corrigendum, expression of concern, or retraction.

Complaints, Disagreements & Reviewer Protection

A structured protocol for author appeals and disputes, designed to arbitrate fairly while protecting the anonymity and safety of the evaluation panel.

Dispute categorisation

Complaints are isolated into Scientific Disagreements (technical critiques or editorial interpretation) or Procedural Complaints (misconduct, bias, negligence).

Reviewer anonymity firewall

Reviewer identities are permanently guarded by a legal and technical firewall. Authors may never contact or target reviewers directly; complaints attempting to unmask a reviewer are dismissed immediately.

Independent ad-hoc committee

Valid appeals are removed from the original editor's jurisdiction. A fresh Ad-Hoc Arbitration Committee of senior board members and external peers with no prior exposure to the manuscript delivers a final, binding decision.