Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

Trends and Reviews in Medicine and Biomedical Engineering (TRMBE) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes review articles only. Every manuscript considered for publication undergoes external peer review by independent experts. This policy describes how manuscripts are assessed, who assesses them, what reviewers are asked to evaluate, and how editorial decisions are reached. It applies to all article types published by the journal, including reviews commissioned by the editors.

The journal follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2. Type of Peer Review

TRMBE operates single-blind peer review. Reviewers know the identities and affiliations of the authors, but the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, either during review or after publication, unless a reviewer explicitly chooses to sign their report. Reviewer identities are also not disclosed to other reviewers of the same manuscript.

Authors therefore do not need to anonymize their manuscripts. Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers; any such attempt is treated as a breach of publication ethics.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions are first assessed by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor. This assessment is completed within 7 days of submission and determines whether the manuscript is sent for external peer review or returned to the authors. At this stage the editors check that:

  • the manuscript is a review article of a type accepted by the journal (original research is returned without review);
  • the topic falls within the journal's scope;
  • the manuscript uses the journal template and complies with the Author Guidelines;
  • the appropriate reporting guideline has been followed (for example, PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-ScR) and the checklist has been provided where required;
  • the text similarity report raises no concerns about plagiarism or duplicate publication;
  • the English is clear enough for reviewers to assess the content;
  • required declarations (authorship, funding, conflicts of interest, generative AI use) are complete.

Manuscripts may be returned without external review if they fall outside the scope or accepted article types, duplicate an existing high-quality review without adding to it, have serious methodological deficiencies that could not be resolved by revision, or do not meet the journal's ethical or formatting requirements. Authors are told the reason for any return.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass initial assessment are assigned to a handling editor, who invites reviewers. Each round of review involves at least two independent expert reviewers. Where the manuscript spans several disciplines, or where the first reports conflict, additional reviewers may be invited.

Reviewers are chosen for their expertise in the subject of the review and, where appropriate, in methods of evidence synthesis. The editors draw on the Editorial Board, the journal's reviewer database, the reference list of the manuscript, and bibliographic databases. Authors may suggest reviewers in the cover letter; the editors consider these suggestions but are not bound by them, and at least one reviewer for each manuscript is normally not proposed by the authors.

A reviewer must not be invited if they:

  • are at the same institution as any author;
  • have collaborated or co-authored with any author within the past five years;
  • have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with any author, or a direct competing interest in the topic;
  • have previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal and hold a settled view of it, unless the editor considers this appropriate and the reviewer discloses it.

Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflict of interest when accepting an invitation, and editors may replace a reviewer at any stage if a conflict becomes apparent.

5. What Reviewers Assess

Because TRMBE publishes reviews only, reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript as a piece of evidence synthesis, not as a report of new data. Reviewers receive a structured review form and are asked to comment on the following:

  • Relevance and timeliness. Whether the topic is important to medicine or biomedical engineering, whether a review is needed now, and what the manuscript adds to existing reviews.
  • Completeness of the literature. Whether the search strategy is adequate and clearly described, whether important studies or viewpoints have been omitted, and whether the eligibility criteria are appropriate.
  • Methodological transparency. Whether the selection, appraisal, and synthesis of the evidence are described in enough detail to be reproduced and judged, and whether the applicable reporting guideline has been followed.
  • Quality of the synthesis. Whether the manuscript compares and reconciles findings rather than listing them, explains why results agree or diverge, and states clearly what can and cannot be concluded.
  • Balance and accuracy. Whether the evidence is represented fairly, whether limitations and uncertainty are acknowledged, and whether cited work is described correctly.
  • Forward orientation. Whether the manuscript identifies open questions, controversies, and emerging trends, and sets out a reasoned direction for future research or translation.
  • Presentation. Whether the structure, figures, tables, and length are appropriate, and whether the writing is clear.
  • Ethical concerns. Any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or undeclared use of generative AI.

Reviewers are asked to give a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject), comments for the authors, and, if they wish, confidential comments for the editor. Comments for the authors should be specific, constructive, and courteous.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting an invitation, reviewers agree to the following:

  • Timeliness. Reviewers are asked to return their report within 14 days of accepting the invitation. Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should inform the editor promptly or decline the invitation.
  • Confidentiality. The manuscript and all associated material are confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, discuss it with others without the editor's permission, or use its content for their own purposes before publication. A reviewer who wishes to involve a colleague or trainee must obtain the editor's approval in advance and name the co-reviewer in the report.
  • Use of generative AI. Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript to a generative AI tool or any other external service, because doing so breaches confidentiality. Review reports must reflect the reviewer's own expert judgment.
  • Objectivity. Reviews must be based on the scientific and scholarly merit of the manuscript, not on the identity, nationality, institution, or gender of the authors. Reviewers should not request citation of their own work unless it is essential to the manuscript.
  • Disclosure. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before reviewing and must withdraw if a conflict arises during review.
  • Reporting concerns. Reviewers should raise any suspicion of misconduct with the editor rather than with the authors or third parties.

7. Editorial Decisions

The handling editor considers the reviewers' reports together with their own assessment of the manuscript and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who takes the final decision. Decisions are not determined by a simple count of reviewer recommendations; the editor weighs the substance of each report. Possible decisions are:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication as submitted or after minor editorial corrections.
  • Minor revision – limited changes are required that do not affect the main conclusions.
  • Major revision – substantial changes are required, for example to the search strategy, the synthesis, or the structure of the argument.
  • Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for the journal, or the concerns raised cannot be resolved by revision.

Authors can normally expect a first decision within 4 weeks of submission. The decision letter includes the reviewers' comments for the authors and, where relevant, the editor's own comments. If reviewers disagree substantially, the editor may seek an additional opinion before deciding.

8. Revisions

Authors are given 6 weeks to return a major revision and 4 weeks to return a minor revision. Extensions may be requested from the editorial office before the deadline. A revised manuscript must be accompanied by a point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment, and by a copy of the manuscript with changes marked.

Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers, who assess whether their concerns have been addressed. A manuscript is not usually taken through more than two rounds of major revision; if serious concerns remain after the second round, the manuscript is rejected. A decision to reject after revision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

9. Manuscripts from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Members of the Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors, may submit manuscripts to the journal. Such manuscripts are handled by another editor who has no connection with the authors, and the submitting editor has no access to the manuscript's records, the identities of the reviewers, or the editorial discussion. These manuscripts undergo the same single-blind review by at least two independent reviewers as all other submissions and are held to the same standard.

Editors recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts from colleagues at their own institution, recent collaborators, or competitors.

10. Confidentiality of the Editorial Process

All submitted manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. The editors do not disclose the status of a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, and do not disclose reviewer identities to authors or to other reviewers. Manuscripts that are rejected are not retained in any form beyond the records needed for editorial administration.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a decision was based on a misunderstanding of the manuscript or on a procedural error may appeal in writing to editorial@inatgi.net, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision, who may consult a further reviewer. One appeal is permitted per manuscript, and the outcome of the appeal is final. Disagreement with the reviewers' scientific judgment is not in itself grounds for appeal.

Complaints about the conduct of reviewers or editors are handled by the Editor-in-Chief, or, where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, by the publisher, in accordance with COPE guidance.

12. Research Integrity

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabricated references, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or undeclared use of generative AI are investigated according to COPE flowcharts. Depending on the findings, the journal may reject or retract the manuscript and may inform the authors' institutions. Reviewers who breach confidentiality, misuse a manuscript, or act with bias are removed from the reviewer database.

13. Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the work of its reviewers. Reviewers may record their contribution in their ORCID record or through reviewer recognition services, provided the manuscript and its content remain confidential. The journal publishes an annual acknowledgment of reviewers who have contributed during the year, unless a reviewer asks not to be named. Reviewers who consistently provide thorough and timely reports may be invited to join the Editorial Board.

14. Contact

Questions about this policy should be addressed to the Editorial Office at editorial@inatgi.net.