Peer Review Policy

For participation and registration in ICBA 2026, authors are required to submit a full manuscript through our submission system. All submitted articles undergo an initial screening by the Conference Scientific Committee to evaluate their relevance, originality, and suitability for the conference themes and scope.

After passing the initial screening, the article will be sent for review, and the Authors of the manuscript will receive an official notification of under review. All full papers submitted to ICBA 2026 will undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, and scientific contribution. Each manuscript will be reviewed independently by at least two expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Authors receiving revision requests must submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline, typically within 10 days after receiving reviewer comments.

After abstract submission, the Track Directors and Scientific Committee conduct an initial evaluation to determine:

• Relevance to the conference themes and scope
• Scientific significance and originality
• Clarity of objectives and methodology
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Formatting and template compliance checks
• Ethical compliance verification
• Plagiarism similarity screening

Manuscripts that fail to meet the minimum academic or formatting standards may be rejected or returned to the authors for correction before proceeding further.

This preliminary screening helps authors avoid unnecessary delays and ensures that only suitable submissions proceed to presentation and full-paper review stages.

ICBA 2026 follows a strict double-blind peer review policy, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewer Assignment

Within one week after full-paper submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Track Director assigns each manuscript to at least two independent international reviewers whose expertise aligns with the manuscript topic. Reviewers must declare the absence of conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment.

Conflicts of interest may include:

• Institutional affiliations
• Research collaborations
• Financial or personal relationships with authors

Initial Screening by Reviewers (1 Week)

Reviewers first evaluate:

• Compliance with formatting requirements
• Completeness of manuscript structure
• Relevance to conference themes
• Basic methodological appropriateness

Papers that fail to meet basic standards may receive desk rejection with constructive feedback.

In-Depth Technical Evaluation (2–3 Weeks)

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

• Originality and innovation
• Scientific and methodological validity
• Quality of data and analysis
• Relevance to biochemistry, biotechnology, and related fields
• Ethical standards and research integrity
• Contribution to knowledge and practical applications

Reviewers provide:

• Detailed constructive comments
• Suggestions for improvement
• A recommendation category: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject

Confidential recommendations are submitted directly to the Editorial Committee.

Acceptance Decision

Based on reviewer comments and editorial evaluation, the Track Director and Editorial Committee make the final publication decision. Possible decisions include:

• Accept Submission
• Minor Revision Required
• Major Revision Required
• Reject Submission

Authors will receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial decision within approximately one week after review completion. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or editorial discussion before a final decision is made.