Peer Review Policy
ElectroSenses – Journal of Bioelectromagnetics, Environmental & Functional Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity.
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, compliance with ethical standards, and basic methodological quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are subjected to independent peer review by a minimum of two reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise.
The journal operates a single-blind peer review process, in which reviewer identities are concealed from authors. Reviewer anonymity is maintained unless a reviewer chooses to disclose their identity.
Reviewer Selection and Expertise
Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise, publication record, and methodological competence relevant to the manuscript content, rather than professional title alone.
Peer reviewers may include researchers and clinicians from disciplines such as medicine, biology, biochemistry, genetics, immunology, physiology, environmental sciences, epidemiology, biostatistics, pharmacology and related fields.
Members of the Editorial Board may also serve as peer reviewers in accordance with their scientific expertise.
To ensure independence, objectivity, and diversity of perspectives, the journal additionally relies on external reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board. All reviewers are required to declare potential conflicts of interest and to recuse themselves where appropriate.
Where necessary, manuscripts may also be reviewed by specialists in statistics, methodology, or data analysis.
Editorial Decision-Making
Editorial decisions are based on reviewer reports, scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical considerations, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Final editorial decisions are made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, who must be independent of the authors and reviewers and free of any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial considerations, publication fees, or sponsorship.
Conflicts of Interest
All reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Individuals with relevant conflicts are excluded from participation in the evaluation of the manuscript.
Authors are required to disclose all relevant financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing their work.
Editor-Authored Submissions
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by members of the Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief, are handled under a strictly independent editorial process.
Such submissions are assigned to an independent handling editor with no conflict of interest. Editorial board members involved as authors have no access to the peer review or editorial decision-making process for their manuscript.
A statement describing the independent handling of editor-authored submissions is included in the published article.
Ethical and Methodological Assessment
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts for:
- Scientific validity and methodological soundness
- Appropriate ethical approvals and informed consent, where applicable
- Transparency of data reporting and interpretation
Concerns regarding ethics, data integrity, or potential misconduct are referred to the editors and handled in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies.
Revisions and Appeals
Authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments. All revisions are subject to editorial evaluation and, where appropriate, additional peer review.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written appeal explaining the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal is final.
Confidentiality and Integrity
All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations objectively, constructively, and within agreed timelines, and to respect the confidentiality of all submitted materials.