Editorial Screening and Peer Review Process | GSCBPS

Editorial Screening and Peer Review Process

At GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GSCBPS), every submitted manuscript undergoes a structured editorial screening and peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, scientifically sound, and ethically conducted research. Our editorial workflow is designed to maintain academic integrity, promote research excellence, and provide authors with a transparent, fair, and objective publication experience.

The journal follows internationally accepted scholarly publishing practices and evaluates all manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the scope of the journal. Editorial decisions are made independently without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, race, religion, or political beliefs.

Our editorial office works closely with editors, reviewers, and authors to ensure that each manuscript receives an unbiased evaluation while maintaining efficient editorial processing and high publication standards.

Our Commitment to Quality Publishing

Publishing high-quality scientific research requires a rigorous editorial process supported by experienced editors and independent peer reviewers. GSCBPS is committed to ensuring that every accepted article contributes meaningful scientific knowledge to the fields of biological sciences, pharmaceutical sciences, medicine, healthcare, biotechnology, environmental sciences, and related multidisciplinary research areas.

To achieve this objective, each manuscript passes through several quality-control stages before publication. These stages include editorial assessment, technical screening, plagiarism evaluation, scientific peer review, author revision, editorial decision-making, production, and final publication with a permanent Crossref DOI.

Objectives of the Editorial Process

The editorial screening and peer review system has been developed to achieve the following objectives:

• Maintain high scientific publishing standards.
• Ensure originality and novelty of submitted research.
• Verify compliance with publication ethics.
• Evaluate scientific validity and methodological quality.
• Improve manuscript quality through constructive reviewer feedback.
• Provide fair and unbiased editorial decisions.
• Support transparency throughout the publication process.
• Protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editorial Principles

The editorial office follows a number of fundamental principles throughout the evaluation of submitted manuscripts:

• Scientific merit is the primary basis for editorial decisions.
• Editorial decisions remain independent of commercial interests.
• All submissions are treated confidentially.
• Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• Authors receive constructive and objective reviewer feedback whenever possible.
• Editorial decisions are supported by scientific evidence and reviewer recommendations.
• Research integrity and publication ethics remain central throughout the review process.

Overview of the Editorial Workflow

Every manuscript submitted to GSCBPS progresses through a structured editorial workflow designed to ensure consistency, transparency, and quality assurance at every stage of publication.

Editorial Workflow

Editorial Workflow Summary

Why Editorial Screening Is Important

Editorial screening serves as the first scientific quality-control stage after manuscript submission. Before external peer review begins, editors assess whether the manuscript meets the journal's editorial standards and is appropriate for further evaluation. Early screening helps identify submissions that require technical corrections, additional documentation, or improvements before they are sent to independent reviewers.

This preliminary evaluation also contributes to a more efficient peer review process by ensuring that reviewers receive manuscripts that are complete, ethically compliant, and relevant to the journal's scope.

Manuscript Submission

The editorial process begins when authors submit a complete manuscript through the official online submission system of GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GSCBPS). Authors should ensure that all required files and information are provided at the time of submission to facilitate efficient editorial processing.

A complete submission enables the editorial office to initiate the review process promptly and minimizes delays caused by missing information or incomplete documentation.

A standard submission generally includes:

• Main manuscript prepared according to the Author Guidelines.
• Title page containing author details.
• Abstract and keywords.
• Tables, figures, and supplementary materials where applicable.
• Ethical approval statements, if required.
• Conflict of Interest declaration.
• Funding information, where applicable.
• Cover letter (recommended).

Administrative Screening

Immediately after submission, every manuscript undergoes an administrative screening by the editorial office. This preliminary review ensures that the submission is complete and satisfies the journal's basic technical and editorial requirements before scientific evaluation begins.

Administrative screening is not a scientific review and does not determine the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Instead, it focuses on verifying submission completeness and compliance with journal requirements.

Administrative Checklist

During administrative screening, the editorial office verifies the following:

Technical Screening

Following administrative verification, manuscripts undergo technical screening to determine whether they comply with the journal's manuscript preparation requirements. This assessment helps identify formatting issues before the manuscript proceeds to scientific evaluation.

The editorial office may review:

• Document formatting.
• Page layout.
• Font and spacing consistency.
• Section organization.
• Reference formatting.
• Figure quality.
• Table formatting.
• Image resolution.
• File readability.
• Supplementary materials.

Authors may be contacted to correct technical deficiencies before the manuscript proceeds to editorial evaluation.

Scope Evaluation

One of the most important stages of editorial screening is determining whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Editors evaluate whether the submitted work contributes meaningfully to disciplines such as:

• Biological Sciences.
• Pharmaceutical Sciences.
• Medical Sciences.
• Clinical Research.
• Public Health.
• Healthcare Sciences.
• Biotechnology.
• Microbiology.
• Biochemistry.
• Environmental Biology.
• Veterinary Sciences.
• Food and Nutritional Sciences.
• Life Sciences.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope may be declined during editorial screening to enable authors to seek publication in a more appropriate journal without unnecessary delays.

Language and Presentation Assessment

Editors also assess whether the manuscript is presented in clear, professional scientific English. Well-written manuscripts improve communication between authors, reviewers, and readers and facilitate a more efficient peer-review process.

During this assessment, editors consider:

• Grammar and spelling.
• Scientific terminology.
• Logical organization.
• Clarity of writing.
• Consistency of terminology.
• Readability.
• Completeness of sections.

Authors whose manuscripts require significant language improvement may be advised to revise the manuscript before peer review.

Compliance with Journal Policies

Before a manuscript is forwarded for scientific evaluation, the editorial office confirms that it complies with the journal's editorial policies and publication requirements.

This review includes verification of:

• Originality of submission.
• Exclusive submission to GSCBPS.
• Authorship information.
• Conflict of Interest declaration.
• Funding disclosure.
• Ethics approval where required.
• Patient consent statements when applicable.
• Data availability statements where appropriate.

Outcome of Administrative and Editorial Screening

After completion of the initial screening process, one of the following actions may be taken:

Assignment to the Handling Editor

Once a manuscript successfully completes the administrative screening, technical verification, scope evaluation, and preliminary editorial assessment, it is assigned to a Handling Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area. Assigning manuscripts to editors with appropriate scientific backgrounds helps ensure a knowledgeable, objective, and fair evaluation throughout the peer review process.

The Handling Editor is responsible for overseeing the scientific assessment of the manuscript from reviewer selection through the final editorial recommendation. Throughout this process, editors maintain impartiality, confidentiality, and adherence to the journal's editorial policies.

Role of the Handling Editor

The Handling Editor performs several important responsibilities during the editorial process, including:

• Evaluating the scientific relevance of the manuscript.
• Confirming that the manuscript aligns with the journal's aims and scope.
• Selecting qualified independent peer reviewers.
• Monitoring the progress of the peer review process.
• Assessing reviewer comments and recommendations.
• Communicating revision requests to authors.
• Making editorial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Ensuring fairness, consistency, and confidentiality throughout the review process.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences are based solely on the scientific quality and academic merit of the submitted work. Editors perform their duties independently and are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, funding sources, nationality, gender, race, religion, or political considerations.

Every manuscript is evaluated objectively according to established editorial standards and internationally accepted principles of scholarly publishing.

Conflict of Interest Assessment

Before accepting responsibility for handling a manuscript, editors are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Examples of conflicts of interest may include:

• Current or recent research collaboration with the authors.
• Employment at the same institution.
• Personal or professional relationships.
• Financial interests related to the research.
• Competitive or conflicting academic interests.

If a conflict of interest exists, the manuscript is reassigned to another qualified editor to preserve the integrity of the editorial process.

Selecting Independent Peer Reviewers

After the editorial assessment, the Handling Editor identifies suitable independent experts to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication history, and familiarity with the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewer selection aims to ensure that each manuscript receives a balanced, informed, and objective scientific evaluation.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Potential reviewers are generally evaluated according to the following criteria:

Reviewer Invitation Process

Selected reviewers receive an invitation describing the manuscript's title, abstract, and subject area. Before accepting the invitation, reviewers are expected to confirm that they:

• Possess appropriate expertise.
• Can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• Have no conflicts of interest.
• Agree to maintain confidentiality.

If an invited reviewer declines or is unavailable, the editor invites alternative qualified reviewers to ensure timely manuscript evaluation.

Maintaining Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewer identities are treated as confidential throughout the editorial process. Reviewer names, affiliations, and personal information are not disclosed to authors unless the journal explicitly adopts an open peer review model, which is not the standard practice for GSCBPS.

Similarly, reviewers are expected to treat all submitted manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents and must not share, distribute, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Maintaining Author Confidentiality

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences follows a double-blind peer review system whenever applicable. Under this model, reasonable efforts are made to ensure that reviewer identities remain concealed from authors and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers during the review process.

This approach promotes objective evaluation by minimizing the influence of institutional reputation, geographic location, professional status, or previous collaborations.

Reviewer Availability and Timeliness

The editorial office actively monitors reviewer invitations and review progress to maintain an efficient publication workflow. While every effort is made to obtain reviews within reasonable timeframes, review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need to identify additional reviewers when necessary.

Maintaining review quality always takes precedence over speed, and editorial decisions are never made without adequate scientific evaluation.

Quality Assurance Before Peer Review

Before a manuscript is formally sent for external review, the Handling Editor confirms that:

• The manuscript meets minimum scientific standards.
• The study falls within the journal's scope.
• Required ethical statements are included.
• Administrative requirements have been satisfied.
• The manuscript is suitable for expert evaluation.

Only manuscripts meeting these requirements proceed to the formal peer review stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GSCBPS) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and solely on their scientific merit. The peer review process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and plays a vital role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of published research.

Once a manuscript successfully completes editorial screening and is assigned to a Handling Editor, it is forwarded to independent subject experts for scientific evaluation. Reviewer recommendations assist editors in making informed publication decisions while helping authors improve the quality and clarity of their work.

What Is Double-Blind Peer Review?

In a double-blind peer review system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed during the review process whenever reasonably practicable. This approach minimizes potential bias and encourages objective evaluation based exclusively on the quality and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

The purpose of double-blind review is to promote impartiality and maintain confidence in the editorial decision-making process.

Advantages of Double-Blind Peer Review

The double-blind review model offers several important advantages for authors, reviewers, and the scientific community.

• Promotes unbiased scientific evaluation.
• Reduces institutional and geographical bias.
• Minimizes the influence of author reputation.
• Encourages objective reviewer comments.
• Supports fair editorial decisions.
• Improves the overall quality of published research.
• Strengthens confidence in the peer review process.

Objectives of Peer Review

The primary objectives of peer review are to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and reliability of submitted manuscripts while providing constructive recommendations for improvement.

Reviewers help editors determine whether a manuscript:

• Presents original research.
• Addresses an important scientific question.
• Uses appropriate research methodology.
• Provides reliable and reproducible results.
• Draws conclusions supported by the presented data.
• Complies with accepted ethical standards.
• Contributes new knowledge to the scientific literature.

Scientific Evaluation Criteria

During peer review, reviewers evaluate multiple aspects of the submitted manuscript. Although the specific criteria may vary depending on the type of article, reviewers generally assess the following:

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are expected to perform their evaluations professionally, objectively, and confidentially. Reviewer comments should be constructive, evidence-based, and intended to help improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declare any conflicts of interest.
• Provide objective and unbiased assessments.
• Support recommendations with scientific reasoning.
• Identify ethical concerns where applicable.
• Evaluate the originality of the research.
• Submit reviews within the requested timeframe whenever possible.

Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the evaluation, reviewers generally provide one of the following recommendations to the editor:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature. The final publication decision rests with the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief after considering all reviewer comments and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

Confidentiality During Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to GSCBPS are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, distribute unpublished information, or use submitted data for personal research or professional advantage before publication.

Similarly, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and author responses remain confidential throughout the review process.

Constructive Reviewer Feedback

The journal encourages reviewers to provide detailed, respectful, and constructive comments that assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewer reports should identify both the strengths of the study and areas where clarification or revision may enhance scientific quality.

Constructive peer review contributes significantly to improving research quality and benefits both authors and readers.

Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports

After reviewer reports are received, the Handling Editor carefully evaluates the recommendations together with the scientific content of the manuscript. When reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification or invite additional independent reviewers before making an editorial recommendation.

This balanced approach helps ensure that editorial decisions are based on comprehensive scientific evaluation rather than a single opinion.

Commitment to Fair Peer Review

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences is committed to providing every submitted manuscript with an impartial and evidence-based scientific evaluation. Editorial decisions are made independently after careful consideration of reviewer reports, editorial assessment, publication ethics, and the overall contribution of the research to the scientific community.

Editorial Decision Process

After the peer review process is completed, the Handling Editor carefully evaluates the reviewer reports together with the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript. The editor considers reviewer recommendations while exercising independent editorial judgment to ensure that publication decisions are objective, consistent, and based solely on scientific merit.

The final editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments and any recommendations for revision where applicable. Authors are encouraged to respond thoughtfully and comprehensively to reviewer feedback to facilitate timely processing of their manuscript.

How Editorial Decisions Are Made

Editorial decisions are based on multiple factors rather than solely on reviewer recommendations. During the decision-making process, editors consider:

• Scientific originality and novelty.
• Importance of the research findings.
• Methodological quality and validity.
• Reviewer recommendations.
• Compliance with publication ethics.
• Clarity of presentation.
• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
• Overall contribution to biological and pharmaceutical sciences.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor has the final responsibility for publication decisions.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, one of the following editorial decisions is generally communicated to the corresponding author:

Minor Revision

A decision of Minor Revision indicates that the manuscript has scientific merit and may be suitable for publication after addressing relatively small issues identified during peer review.

Examples of minor revisions may include:

• Clarification of specific statements.
• Improvement of language and grammar.
• Additional discussion of findings.
• Minor reference corrections.
• Improved figure or table presentation.
• Formatting adjustments.

Once revised, the manuscript is evaluated by the Handling Editor and, where necessary, may be returned to reviewers for confirmation that the requested changes have been satisfactorily addressed.

Major Revision

A decision of Major Revision indicates that the manuscript demonstrates potential scientific value but requires substantial improvements before it can be considered for publication.

Major revisions may involve:

• Additional data analysis.
• Expanded discussion of results.
• Clarification of research methodology.
• Improvement of statistical analysis.
• Revision of conclusions.
• Addressing significant reviewer concerns.

After resubmission, the revised manuscript may undergo an additional round of peer review to determine whether reviewer concerns have been adequately resolved.

Preparing the Revised Manuscript

Authors should carefully review every comment provided by the editors and reviewers before submitting a revised manuscript. Comprehensive and well-organized responses often facilitate faster editorial evaluation.

When preparing a revision, authors are encouraged to:

• Address every reviewer comment individually.
• Revise the manuscript clearly and accurately.
• Highlight or identify revised sections where appropriate.
• Provide scientific justification if a suggested revision cannot be implemented.
• Maintain professional and respectful communication.

Response to Reviewers

Authors are encouraged to submit a detailed response document together with the revised manuscript. The response should explain how each reviewer comment has been addressed and identify the location of corresponding revisions within the manuscript.

A clear response document assists editors and reviewers in evaluating the revised manuscript efficiently and contributes to a smoother editorial process.

Subsequent Review

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

• Evaluated directly by the Handling Editor.
• Returned to one or more original reviewers.
• Sent to additional reviewers if further expertise is required.

Additional review ensures that substantial revisions have adequately addressed the scientific concerns raised during the initial evaluation.

Acceptance of the Manuscript

When the editor is satisfied that all significant scientific, technical, and ethical issues have been appropriately addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication.

Acceptance confirms that the manuscript has successfully completed the editorial and peer review process and has met the journal's standards for scientific quality and publication ethics.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production, copyediting, typesetting, DOI registration, and online publication.

Reasons for Rejection

Although every submission receives careful editorial consideration, some manuscripts may not proceed to publication. Rejection decisions are based on scientific or editorial considerations rather than personal judgments.

Common reasons for rejection may include:

• Outside the journal's scope.
• Insufficient scientific novelty.
• Methodological weaknesses.
• Unsupported conclusions.
• Ethical concerns.
• Evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication.
• Failure to adequately address reviewer comments.
• Poor overall scientific quality.

Whenever appropriate, reviewer comments are shared with authors to provide constructive guidance for future improvements.

Editorial Fairness and Transparency

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences is committed to maintaining a transparent and equitable editorial decision-making process. Every manuscript is evaluated according to consistent editorial standards, and publication decisions are made independently, objectively, and without discrimination.

Authors may contact the editorial office if clarification regarding editorial decisions or revision requests is required. The journal encourages professional communication throughout the publication process.

Production Process After Acceptance

Once a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication, it enters the production stage. The objective of this phase is to prepare the manuscript for final online publication while maintaining accuracy, consistency, readability, and professional presentation.

During production, the editorial and production teams perform several quality assurance procedures before the article becomes part of the permanent scientific literature. Although the scientific review has already been completed, careful production processing ensures that the published article meets the journal's publishing standards.

Production Workflow

After acceptance, manuscripts generally progress through the following production stages:

Copyediting

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting to improve readability, consistency, and overall presentation while preserving the scientific content provided by the authors.

Copyediting may include:

• Correction of grammar and spelling.
• Standardization of scientific terminology.
• Consistency in headings and formatting.
• Reference formatting verification.
• Table and figure numbering.
• Consistency of abbreviations and units.
• Editorial style adjustments.

Copyediting is intended to improve clarity and presentation without altering the scientific meaning or conclusions of the manuscript.

Typesetting

Following copyediting, the manuscript is professionally typeset according to the journal's publication style. Typesetting ensures that the article is presented in a clear, consistent, and reader-friendly format suitable for online publication.

During this stage, attention is given to:

• Article layout.
• Heading hierarchy.
• Tables and figures.
• Page organization.
• Reference presentation.
• Author affiliations.
• Citation formatting.

Author Proof Review

Before publication, the corresponding author is provided with the final proof of the manuscript for review. This allows authors to verify that the production process has accurately reflected the accepted version of the manuscript.

Authors are encouraged to review the proof carefully and confirm:

• Author names and affiliations.
• Article title.
• Abstract and keywords.
• Tables and figures.
• Equations and symbols.
• References.
• Formatting consistency.

At this stage, only minor corrections relating to typographical or formatting issues should normally be requested. Substantial scientific changes are generally not permitted after acceptance unless approved by the editorial office.

Crossref DOI Assignment

Following completion of the production process, every accepted article is assigned a permanent Crossref Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The DOI provides a persistent and internationally recognized identifier that enables reliable citation, long-term accessibility, and efficient indexing of published research.

A Crossref DOI offers several important advantages:

• Permanent article identification.
• Stable citation linking.
• Improved discoverability.
• Reliable online accessibility.
• Integration with scholarly databases and reference management systems.

Final Publication

After successful completion of copyediting, proof approval, and DOI registration, the final version of the manuscript is published on the official GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences website.

The published article represents the Version of Record and becomes part of the permanent scholarly literature. Once published, the article can be accessed, cited, shared, and referenced by researchers worldwide.

Open Access Publishing

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences follows an Open Access publishing model, allowing readers worldwide to access published research without subscription or paywall restrictions.

Open Access publication offers numerous benefits, including:

• Immediate global accessibility.
• Greater research visibility.
• Enhanced dissemination of scientific knowledge.
• Improved opportunities for scholarly citation.
• Support for international scientific collaboration.

Publication Certificate

Upon publication, authors are eligible to receive a free electronic Certificate of Publication as official recognition of their published research. The certificate serves as documentation of successful publication and may be used for academic records, professional portfolios, institutional reporting, and research evaluation purposes.

Post-Publication Corrections

The journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published scientific record. If significant errors are identified after publication, appropriate editorial actions may be taken in accordance with the journal's publication policies.

Depending on the nature of the issue, post-publication actions may include:

• Publication of corrections.
• Editorial notices.
• Corrigenda.
• Errata.
• Retractions where necessary.

Such actions are undertaken transparently to preserve the integrity of the scholarly literature.

Estimated Publication Timeline

Although the duration of each stage may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, and production scheduling, GSCBPS strives to maintain an efficient publication workflow.

*The above timelines are approximate and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and editorial workload.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GSCBPS) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and objective editorial process. Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals should present clear scientific justification and address the specific points on which the appeal is based. Appeals should not simply express disagreement with reviewer opinions or editorial decisions without supporting evidence.

Upon receipt of an appeal, the editorial team may:

• Review the complete editorial history of the manuscript.
• Evaluate the scientific basis of the appeal.
• Consult the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
• Seek advice from additional independent reviewers if necessary.
• Communicate the final editorial decision to the corresponding author.

The decision reached after completion of the appeal process is considered final.

Complaints Procedure

GSCBPS welcomes constructive feedback regarding its editorial services and publishing practices. Complaints relating to editorial handling, peer review, publication ethics, or journal policies will be investigated carefully and confidentially.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers may contact the Editorial Office if they believe that editorial procedures have not been followed appropriately.

Each complaint is assessed independently, and appropriate action is taken whenever necessary in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and ethical standards.

Commitment to Publication Ethics

GSCBPS is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing. Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff are expected to adhere to internationally accepted ethical principles throughout the publication process.

The journal actively promotes:

• Integrity in scientific research.
• Original scholarly contributions.
• Responsible authorship.
• Transparency in reporting research.
• Ethical treatment of human and animal subjects.
• Respect for intellectual property.
• Objective editorial decision-making.

Research Integrity

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts accurately present the research conducted. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate publication, and other forms of research misconduct are not acceptable.

Where necessary, manuscripts may be evaluated using plagiarism detection software and additional editorial assessments before or during peer review.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could reasonably influence the interpretation, review, or publication of a manuscript.

Appropriate disclosure promotes transparency and helps maintain confidence in the scientific publishing process.

Data Availability and Reproducibility

Authors are encouraged to maintain accurate research records and retain supporting data wherever appropriate. Providing sufficient methodological detail and, where possible, making supporting data available enhances the reproducibility, transparency, and credibility of published research.

Corrections and Retractions

The journal is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. If significant errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, appropriate editorial actions may include:

• Corrections.
• Errata.
• Corrigenda.
• Expressions of Concern.
• Retractions.

Such actions are implemented transparently in accordance with established editorial procedures and publication ethics policies.

Contact the Editorial Office

Authors requiring clarification regarding editorial screening, peer review, manuscript revisions, publication ethics, or publication procedures are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office.

Our editorial team is committed to providing timely assistance and supporting authors throughout the publication process.

Email: editor-gscbps@gsconlinepress.com

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is editorial screening?

Editorial screening is the first stage of manuscript evaluation. During this process, the editorial office verifies whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope, complies with submission guidelines, meets ethical standards, and contains all required components before it is sent for peer review.

2. Does GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences use peer review?

Yes. All manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review by independent experts in the relevant field to evaluate their scientific quality, originality, methodology, and significance.

3. What is a double-blind peer review?

In a double-blind peer review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed whenever reasonably practicable. This helps ensure an unbiased, objective, and fair evaluation of every manuscript.

4. How long does the peer review process take?

The exact timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time required for author revisions. Journal also offer Rapid Peer Review in case required.

5. What editorial decisions can authors receive?

Following peer review, the editorial office may issue one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The final decision is based on reviewer recommendations and the editor's independent scientific assessment.

6. Can I appeal an editorial decision?

Yes. Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe an editorial decision resulted from a factual misunderstanding or procedural error. Appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial team, and the final decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

7. What happens after my manuscript is accepted?

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, typesetting, author proof review, Crossref DOI registration, and final online publication as an Open Access article on the journal website.

8. How can I check the status of my submitted manuscript?

Authors may contact the Editorial Office using the official journal email to request updates regarding the status of their manuscript during the editorial or peer review process. Authors can check status using form at 📄Track Manuscript Status page of Journal.

9. Where can I find the Author Guidelines?

Complete manuscript preparation instructions, formatting requirements, ethical policies, and submission information are available on the Author Guidelines page.