Selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the Editor, although the PhD scientists on staff make recommendations to the Editor from a database of individuals who have reviewed manuscripts previously. This database includes self-identified areas of expertise as well as information about the perceived usefulness and timeliness of past reviews. Individuals who consistently have provided tardy or unhelpful reviews are removed from the database. Every effort is made to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest with respect to research activities or collaborative or personal interactions. Reviewers are asked to with draw from considering any manuscript in which they identify a conflict that has escaped the attention of the Editor.

The journal uses double blind peer review, carried out by at least two scientists who have the degree of candidate of science, doctor of science, doctor of philosophy (PhD) and scientific specialization on the topic of the reviewed manuscript.

Information contained in manuscripts is considered confidential and should not be shared or distributed. If necessary, a reviewer can consult with others for an adequate evaluation of the research findings if all individuals involved maintain confidentiality, objectivity, and avoid conflict of interest. NCB is not responsible for acts and conduct by reviewers that are not in accordance with accepted professional standards. Reviewers are asked to be objective in their evaluations and to judge primarily the novelty and soundness of the information presented.

Although reviews are anonymous, all comments should be capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Except in very unusual circumstances, the identity of the reviewers and Editors involved in the review of any given manuscript is kept confidential.


Review process

The manuscripts received by the editorial office of the journal and meeting the formal requirements, the design requirements and the originality indicator based on verification through the plagiarism check system, are sent for further review without fail.

If the author (s) of the manuscript has a conflict of interest with other scientist (s), he (s) must indicate the existence of such a conflict of interest in the covering letter, in order to avoid sending this manuscript to the specified scientist (reviewer) and biased assessments of the manuscript.

In the «Eurasian Journal of Applied Biotechnology», “two-way-blind” peer review is applied, carried out by at least two scientists with the academic degrees of Candidate of Science, Doctor of Science, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and scientific scientific specialization on the topic of the reviewed manuscript.

Reviewing is carried out confidentially: the manuscript of the article is sent to reviewers through the electronic platform of the journal without specifying information about the authors. Reviewers are required to have a clear, objective and reasoned assessment of the compliance of the manuscript with the main scientific criteria, as well as its quality of significance.

After receiving conclusions from the reviewers, the executive editor sends them to the author for correspondence without specifying the data of the reviewers, for responding to comments, making appropriate changes and resubmitting the manuscript via the electronic platform. The author (s) may, without explanation, refuse to respond to comments, make changes to the manuscript and send it back to the editorial office of the «Eurasian Journal of Biotechnology».

After answering all the comments, making changes to the manuscript to eliminate the comments of the reviewers and re-sending it to the editorial office of the journal, the scientific editor sends all the materials to the reviewer (s) for re-review.

The manuscript, which has positive conclusions from two reviewers and the executive editor, are recommended for publication in the «Eurasian Journal of Applied Biotechnology» according to the order of their acceptance for publication. Manuscripts approved by the editorial board are transferred to the executive secretary for the formation of the issue of the journal.

If one of the reviewers provided a positive conclusion on the manuscript, and the second - a negative one, then the manuscript is sent by the scientific editor to the third reviewer or a member of the editorial board who is a specialist in the subject of the manuscript. If a third reviewer or a member of the editorial board provides a positive conclusion, the final decision on the acceptance/rejection of the publication of the manuscript is taken by the scientific editor of the «Eurasian Journal of Applied Biotechnology».

In the case of two negative reviews, the manuscript deviates from publication in the journal.

The materials of articles rejected by the editorial board based on the results of peer review are not used by the editorial board for their own purposes. The editor or executive secretary notifies the author for correspondence about the refusal to publish and sends the opinions of the reviewers.

The manuscript reviews are stored for three years in electronic format on the journal's electronic platform.

The period for reviewing is assigned by the editor responsible for the article, and the period for reviewing the manuscript by the reviewers is no more than two months from the date of sending the material to the reviewers.