At SCICONX Journal of Immunobiology, we uphold a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded peer review system designed to ensure the publication of high-quality research in all domains of immunology. Our process is structured to maintain scientific integrity, evaluate methodological precision, and support the advancement of evidence-based immunobiological knowledge. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers throughout the evaluation process.

1. Overview of the Review Workflow

All submitted manuscripts undergo a multi-stage assessment comprising the following steps:

1.1. Initial Administrative Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office verifies:

• Completeness of files
• Compliance with journal formatting guidelines
• Ethical statements and approvals
• Plagiarism check and originality verification
• Suitability of the manuscript type

Submissions that do not meet basic requirements are returned to authors for revision before formal review.

2. Editorial Pre-Assessment

2.1. Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor Evaluation

A Handling Editor is assigned based on subject relevance.
They conduct a preliminary assessment to evaluate:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Novelty, scientific value, and potential impact
• Clarity of presentation and methodological strength

Manuscripts failing to meet foundational criteria are desk-rejected with constructive feedback.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

3.1. Reviewer Expertise

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Proven expertise in immunology or related biomedical fields
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Experience in scholarly reviewing
• Research contributions relevant to the manuscript

3.2. Reviewer Invitations

Typically, 2–3 reviewers are invited for each manuscript.
If reviewers decline, additional invitations are issued to ensure timely evaluation.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review Procedure

4.1. Confidentiality

Both author and reviewer identities remain hidden throughout the process.

4.2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers assess:

• Scientific rigor and validity of methodology
• Quality and reliability of data
• Depth of immunological insight
• Novelty and originality
• Ethical compliance
• Relevance and clarity of conclusions

Reviewers provide:

• A detailed critique
• Specific suggestions for improvement
• A recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject)

5. Decision Process

5.1. Handling Editor Decision

After evaluating reviewer reports, the editor makes a recommendation considering:

• Consensus among reviewers
• Scientific merit of the manuscript
• Degree of required revisions

5.2. Editor-in-Chief Final Approval

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) validates all editorial decisions and ensures:

• Fairness and transparency
• Consistency with journal standards
• Scientific and ethical compliance

6. Revision and Resubmission

6.1. Major or Minor Revisions

Authors receive consolidated reviewer comments and are required to submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A point-by-point response document

6.2. Re-evaluation

Revised submissions may:

• Be reassessed by the original reviewers
• Undergo further editorial evaluation
• Proceed directly to acceptance if revisions are minor and satisfactory

7. Acceptance and Production

Once accepted, manuscripts enter the production workflow:

• Copyediting
• Typesetting
• Proof generation
• Author proof corrections
• Final publication

The journal ensures rapid and accurate processing to maintain timely dissemination of research findings.

8. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

SCICONX Journal of Immunobiology adheres to the highest ethical standards and follows guidelines comparable to those of COPE. Our peer review policy prohibits:

• Conflicts of interest
• Breaches of confidentiality
• Misuse of privileged information
• Any form of discrimination or bias

Reviewers must uphold integrity, objectivity, and professionalism at all times.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may formally request reconsideration of decisions if they believe:

• A factual or procedural error occurred
• Reviewer comments contain clear inaccuracies
• Conflicts of interest affected the outcome

Appeals are independently evaluated by a senior editorial member to ensure fairness and transparency.

10. Commitment to Transparency and Quality

SCICONX Journal of Immunobiology is committed to:

• A fair, constructive, and unbiased assessment of all submissions
• Supporting authors through clear feedback
• Maintaining a robust and ethical peer review framework
• Upholding global standards of scientific publishing

Our goal is to foster trust, credibility, and excellence within the immunology research community.