Manuscript preparation requirements, our full peer review workflow, and guidance for reviewers — in one place.
Genesis Biologica is an international, open-access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing knowledge across the biological sciences. We welcome original contributions of the highest scientific merit from researchers worldwide. These guidelines have been prepared to assist authors in preparing and submitting their manuscripts in a manner consistent with our editorial standards and international publishing ethics.
Genesis Biologica uses double-anonymous peer review. Every submission is two files.
The title on the title page must match the blinded manuscript word for word. A mismatch is the commonest reason a submission is returned at the first check. See Anonymising Your Manuscript before you submit.
Authors must submit their manuscripts only through the journal submission portal.
Submissions sent by e-mail or through any other channel will not be considered for peer review. Before initiating a submission, authors are strongly advised to read these guidelines in full and to confirm that their manuscript complies with all requirements outlined herein. The corresponding author is responsible for the submission and for all subsequent correspondence with the Editorial Office on behalf of all co-authors.
Each submission must include the complete manuscript file, all figure files at the appropriate resolution, and any supplementary materials. A cover letter addressed to the Editor-in-Chief is required and must briefly summarise the scientific significance of the work, confirm that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere, and declare any conflicts of interest.
Genesis Biologica operates double-anonymous peer review. Every submission is made as two separate files:
A single non-anonymised template is also available for reference and for the production version prepared after acceptance: full manuscript template (.docx).
The templates are built on named Word styles. Apply them from the Styles gallery rather than formatting by hand — selecting a style gives the correct font, size, spacing and alignment in one step. Do not change the font of any style. A formatting reference table listing every style, with its font and size, is included at the end of each template.
The title on the title page must match the title on the blinded manuscript word for word. A mismatch is the commonest reason a submission is returned at the first check.
Manuscripts not formatted in accordance with the template will be returned to the corresponding author for reformatting before editorial evaluation commences.
Genesis Biologica considers the following article types for peer review:
Genesis Biologica publishes high-quality research across the breadth of the biological sciences. The journal's current scope encompasses, but is not limited to:
Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics and Genomics, Developmental Biology, Evolutionary Biology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Structural Biology, Systems Biology, Bioinformatics, Neurobiology, Immunology, Cancer Biology, Plant Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology, Nanotechnology, Nanomedicine, and Phytomedicine.
Manuscripts with interdisciplinary scope that bridge two or more of these areas are particularly welcome. Authors uncertain as to whether their work falls within the journal's remit are invited to contact the Editorial Office with a brief description of the study prior to submission.
Manuscripts are submitted as two editable Microsoft Word (.docx) files — the blinded manuscript and the title page — both prepared using the official Genesis Biologica templates. Figures should be uploaded as separate high-resolution files in addition to being embedded within the manuscript document for reviewer convenience.
The manuscript must be written in clear, grammatical English. Authors whose first language is not English are strongly encouraged to seek professional English-language editing prior to submission. The Editorial Office reserves the right to decline manuscripts that cannot be evaluated owing to poor linguistic quality. Both British and American English conventions are acceptable, provided consistency is maintained throughout.
The blinded manuscript must contain nothing that identifies you or your institution. The Editorial Office returns manuscripts that fail anonymisation without sending them to reviewers, and a returned manuscript loses its place in the queue.
GB_blinded_manuscript.docx. A file named after a surname defeats the anonymisation before the file is even opened.A full anonymisation checklist is included at the end of the blinded manuscript template.
The title page must be prepared as the first page of the manuscript and must include the following elements:
All manuscript types except Letters to the Editor and Commentaries must include a structured or unstructured abstract, as specified below:
The abstract must be self-contained and intelligible without reference to the main text. Avoid citations, abbreviations, and footnotes in the abstract. The abstract should not reproduce sentences verbatim from the main text.
Four to six keywords, separated by semicolons. Where a Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term exists for your topic, use it. For agricultural, food, veterinary and environmental subjects add at least one NAL Thesaurus or AGROVOC term. Include at least one organism name and one compound name where the study involves them.
Controlled vocabulary is what makes an article retrievable in PubMed, AGRICOLA, PubAg, FSTA, BIOSIS Previews and the CAS databases. Free-text keywords alone will not surface an article in those systems.
The main text should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman or a comparable serif font, with double line spacing and 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all sides. Pages should be numbered consecutively beginning with the title page, and line numbers must be applied throughout to facilitate reviewer comment.
For Research Articles, the main text should follow the conventional IMRAD structure: Introduction, Materials and Methods (or Methods), Results, and Discussion. A combined Results and Discussion section is acceptable where this improves the logical flow of the manuscript. Conclusions may appear as a separate section or as the final paragraph of the Discussion.
For Review Articles, authors have greater flexibility in structuring the main text but must ensure a logical, coherent narrative supported by appropriate subheadings.
A clear and consistent heading hierarchy must be maintained throughout the manuscript:
Headings should not be followed by a colon. Do not use more than three levels of heading hierarchy. Avoid orphan headings at the bottom of a page or column.
Figures must be of publication quality. The following specifications apply:
Regarding image integrity, the Editorial Office adheres strictly to guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the broader scientific community. Images must accurately represent the original data. Inappropriate manipulation — including selective enhancement, removal of elements, or splicing of gels and blots — constitutes research misconduct (see also Section 44).
Tables should be submitted within the manuscript document and formatted using the table function of word-processing software. Do not submit tables as image files. Tables must be numbered consecutively (Table 1, Table 2, etc.) and cited in the text in numerical order.
Each table must have a brief, self-explanatory title placed above the table. Explanatory footnotes (if required) should be placed below the table and indicated using lowercase superscript letters. All abbreviations used in tables must be defined in a footnote. Statistical data should indicate the nature of the values presented (e.g., mean ± SD, median [IQR]) and the sample size.
Supplementary material should be used only for data, methods, or results that are too extensive to include in the main manuscript but that are essential for the reproducibility or completeness of the work. Supplementary material will be published online alongside the main article.
Supplementary files should be named sequentially (Supplementary Figure S1, Supplementary Table S1, Supplementary Method S1, etc.) and cited in the main text. A brief description of each supplementary item should be provided within the manuscript. Supplementary material is not edited or typeset by the Editorial Office and must therefore be provided in a polished, publication-ready format.
A graphical abstract is required for every submission. It is a single visual that summarises the principal findings and significance of the work, designed to facilitate rapid comprehension and to enhance online discoverability. It is published on your article’s public page directly beneath the abstract, and is used as the preview image when the article is shared.
The graphical abstract must be uploaded as a separate image file — not embedded in the manuscript document. Accepted formats are PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP or SVG at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. Recommended dimensions are approximately 1,500 × 500 pixels (width × height). The graphical abstract must not reproduce any figure from the main manuscript verbatim.
TIFF and EPS files cannot be accepted for the graphical abstract. No mainstream web browser can display either format, so a TIFF would not appear on the published article page. If your source artwork is a TIFF or EPS, please export a PNG for the graphical abstract; you may additionally attach the print-resolution original as a “Figure”, which has no format restriction.
Abbreviations should be kept to a minimum and must be defined at first mention in the abstract and again at first mention in the main text. Standard SI units and universally recognised abbreviations (e.g., DNA, RNA, PCR) need not be defined. A list of abbreviations used in the manuscript should be provided at the end of the main text, before the References section. Do not use abbreviations in the title.
All measurements must be expressed using Système International (SI) units or units accepted for use with SI. Where non-SI units are used as the primary unit in a specific discipline (e.g., mmHg in physiology), the SI equivalent should be given in parentheses at first mention. Use a space between the numerical value and the unit symbol (e.g., 37 °C, 500 mL, 1.5 kb). Use a raised dot for compound units where necessary (e.g., mol·L⁻¹·min⁻¹).
Authors must adhere to accepted conventions for scientific nomenclature:
The subject databases that index Genesis Biologica build structured records from identifiers. Where an identifier is missing, the object is retrievable only by free text — which is the single biggest cause of poor visibility. The following are required wherever they apply.
Organisms. Give the binomial in full at first use, italicised, with its taxonomic authority — for example Cassia angustifolia Vahl, or Huperzia serrata (Thunb.) Trevis. Add the NCBI Taxonomy ID, and the IPNI, Index Fungorum or MycoBank identifier where one exists. Include strain, cultivar, line and voucher-specimen designations, and give the herbarium code from Index Herbariorum for any voucher. Indexed by BIOSIS Previews, Biological Abstracts, AGRICOLA and PubAg.
Chemical entities. Give the IUPAC name at first use with the CAS Registry Number, the PubChem CID and the InChIKey, and add the SMILES string for any novel compound. Give EC numbers for enzymes. CAplus/SciFinder and Reaxys build substance and reaction records from these; without them a compound cannot be retrieved by structure search.
Genes, proteins and sequences. Give the approved symbol (HGNC for human genes) and the database accession — UniProt for proteins, Ensembl or NCBI Gene for genes, GenBank, ENA or DDBJ for nucleotide sequences, PDB for structures. Deposit before submission and quote each accession in the Methods and again in the Data Availability Statement.
Research resources. Cite antibodies, cell lines, plasmids, model organisms and software by Research Resource Identifier — for example RRID:AB_2313772, RRID:CVCL_0031, RRID:SCR_002798. Cell lines must also be authenticated and the method stated.
Institutions and funders. Give a ROR identifier (ror.org) for every affiliation that has one, and give funder names exactly as registered in the Crossref Funder Registry, with grant numbers. An incorrect funder name breaks funder attribution and open funder reporting.
A complete and transparent account of all statistical methods used must be provided in the Methods section. Authors should adhere to the SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) guidelines where appropriate. The following should be stated explicitly: the statistical software and version used; the specific tests applied and the rationale for their selection; measures of central tendency and dispersion (e.g., mean ± SD or median with IQR); exact p-values (not merely p < 0.05); effect sizes and confidence intervals wherever possible; and the sample sizes on which each statistical comparison is based. Authors are strongly discouraged from reporting statistical significance in isolation without contextual biological interpretation.
All manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement immediately after the Conclusions (or Discussion) and before the list of declarations. The statement must describe where the data supporting the reported findings can be accessed. Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit primary data in publicly accessible repositories (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare, NCBI GEO, EMBL-EBI, DRYAD, or discipline-specific repositories) and to provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs in the statement. Where data cannot be made publicly available (e.g., for reasons of participant confidentiality), a clear explanation must be provided. In such cases, authors should indicate the conditions under which the data may be accessed upon reasonable request.
Genesis Biologica endorses the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and encourages compliance wherever possible.
Where custom code, scripts, or algorithms have been used in the analysis or generation of data, authors must include a Code Availability Statement. Code should ideally be deposited in a public repository (e.g., GitHub, GitLab, Zenodo) and linked via a persistent identifier (DOI). The programming language, version, and any dependencies must be clearly stated. Where code cannot be made publicly available, the reasons must be explained.
Manuscripts involving human participants, patient data, animal experiments, or any research raising ethical considerations must include a statement confirming that ethics approval was obtained from the relevant institutional or national ethics committee or review board. The name of the approving body and the reference number of the approval must be stated. Research conducted without the required ethics approval will not be considered for publication.
Name the reporting guideline that applies to your study design and supply the completed checklist as a supplementary file:
The full catalogue is maintained by the EQUATOR Network. Where a guideline applies to your design, state the study design explicitly in the title as well.
PubMed Central and MEDLINE assess adherence to reporting guidelines as part of their scientific quality review. Naming the guideline is the simplest way to evidence it.
Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must confirm that ethics committee approval was obtained and that all participants provided informed consent (see Section 25). For research using human tissue or biological samples, the source, collection procedure, and ethical clearance must be described in the Methods section. Studies involving vulnerable populations require particular attention to ethical safeguards.
Studies involving laboratory animals must have been designed and conducted in compliance with the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) 2.0 guidelines. Authors must confirm that animal work was carried out under an appropriate institutional or national ethics approval, that housing and husbandry conditions are described, and that the three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) principles were applied. The species, strain, sex, age, and number of animals used must be reported. The manuscript must clearly state the ethical approval reference number.
All clinical trials must have been prospectively registered in a publicly accessible, WHO-approved clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ANZCTR) prior to enrolment of the first participant. The trial registration number and the name of the registry must be included in the Methods section and on the title page. Reporting of randomised controlled trials should follow the CONSORT guidelines, and the CONSORT checklist should be submitted as supplementary material.
Authors of studies involving human participants must confirm in the Methods section that written informed consent was obtained from all participants, or from their legal guardians where participants were minors or lacked capacity. For case studies and case series involving identifiable individuals, written consent must be obtained from the patient or their representative for the publication of the case details. Where patient images are included, consent must explicitly cover the use of those images for publication.
All authors must declare any financial or non-financial interests that could influence the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of the research. This includes, but is not limited to: employment by, consultancy for, or ownership of shares in any organisation that may benefit from the results of the research; receipt of fees, honoraria, or grants from such organisations; and personal or professional relationships that may constitute a conflict. Where no conflict of interest exists, authors must state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest." Declaration of a conflict does not automatically disqualify a manuscript from consideration.
A Funding Statement must be included for all manuscripts, identifying all sources of financial support for the research. For each funding source, the name of the funding body and the grant or award number (where applicable) should be stated. If no external funding was received, authors must state this explicitly. Authors should also confirm whether the funders played any role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or the decision to publish.
Genesis Biologica requires a formal Author Contributions Statement for all multi-author manuscripts, prepared in accordance with the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework. Each author's contribution must be specified using one or more of the 14 standardised roles: Conceptualisation; Data Curation; Formal Analysis; Funding Acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project Administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualisation; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review and Editing.
All persons listed as authors must satisfy the ICMJE authorship criteria: (i) substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; (ii) drafting or critically revising the manuscript; (iii) approval of the final version; and (iv) accountability for the accuracy and integrity of the work. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged (see Section 29).
The Acknowledgements section should recognise individuals who contributed to the work in ways that do not qualify them for authorship — for example, technical assistance, provision of reagents or materials, or access to facilities. Professional language editing and statistical consultation may also be acknowledged. Authors must obtain permission from all individuals named in the Acknowledgements prior to submission. Funding bodies should not be listed in the Acknowledgements but in the Funding Statement (see Section 27).
ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) iDs are required for the corresponding author and strongly encouraged for all co-authors. ORCID iDs must be verified and active. They should be presented in the format: https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000. Registering for an ORCID iD is free at https://orcid.org.
Genesis Biologica uses a numbered citation style. References in the main text must be cited using Arabic numerals in square brackets in the order of first appearance (e.g., [1], [2,3], [4–6]). The Reference List at the end of the manuscript should be numbered consecutively and formatted as follows:
Journal Article: Smith AB, Jones CD, Williams EF. Title of the article. Journal Name Abbreviated. Year;Volume(Issue):Page–Page. https://doi.org/XXXXXX
Book: Author(s). Title of Book. Edition. Place of Publication: Publisher; Year.
Book Chapter: Author(s). Title of chapter. In: Editor(s), editors. Title of Book. Place of Publication: Publisher; Year. p. XX–XX.
Online Resource: Author(s). Title of resource. Organisation; Year. Available from: URL [Accessed Day Month Year].
Journal titles must be abbreviated according to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalog. All references must include a DOI where one is available. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all references. Reference management software (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote) is encouraged.
Authors retain copyright. Genesis Biologica does not require a copyright transfer.
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Readers may copy and redistribute the article in any medium or format, provided the author and source are credited, the article is not altered or built upon, and the use is not commercial.
Funder mandates. Where a funder requires a different licence, authors may request CC BY 4.0 at submission at no additional charge. This applies to work funded by Wellcome, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Research Council, Horizon Europe, UKRI and other cOAlition S funders. State the request in the Licence Selection statement of your manuscript. Declare it at submission rather than after acceptance: the licence is written into the published article, the Crossref deposit and the full-text XML, so changing it later means reissuing all three.
Licence to publish. On acceptance, authors grant Genesis Biologica a non-exclusive, irrevocable licence to publish, reproduce, translate into markup formats, distribute and sub-licence the article and its metadata — including supply to indexing, abstracting, aggregation, discovery and preservation services — and to authorise text and data mining. Because the grant is non-exclusive, authors keep every right they hold, including the right to deposit and reuse their own work without embargo.
Full terms, including self-archiving rights and the text and data mining policy, are on the Editorial Policies page.
Genesis Biologica is a fully open access journal. Every article is free to read from the moment of publication. There is no embargo, no subscription, no paywall and no registration requirement of any kind.
The journal meets the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of open access: readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search and link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, and use them for any other lawful purpose consistent with the article licence.
Genesis Biologica does not operate a hybrid model. No article in this journal is ever placed behind access control.
Self-archiving. Authors may deposit the submitted version, the accepted manuscript and the version of record in any repository, at any time, with no embargo. See the Editorial Policies page for full terms.
Currently free. The article processing charge is waived in full for every manuscript submitted on or before 31 December 2026. Authors submitting during this period pay nothing at any stage.
From 1 January 2027, manuscripts accepted for publication carry a single article processing charge:
The charge is billed in the currency appropriate to the corresponding author's location. The date of submission determines whether a charge applies, so a manuscript submitted in 2026 and accepted in 2027 remains free.
There are no other charges of any kind. No submission fee, no page charges, no colour figure charges, no charges for supplementary material, and no charge for a correction or retraction notice.
When it is payable. The charge falls due only after a manuscript has been accepted following peer review. Nothing is payable to submit, and nothing is payable if a manuscript is rejected.
Payment plays no part in editorial decisions. Editors and reviewers are not told an author's payment status, and acceptance is never conditional on payment. No author is ever asked to pay in order to be reviewed.
Genesis Biologica acknowledges that authors may use AI-assisted writing tools (e.g., large language models) for tasks such as grammar checking, language refinement, or literature organisation. However, AI tools may not be listed as authors, and all intellectual responsibility for the content, accuracy, and originality of the manuscript lies entirely with the human authors.
Where AI-assisted tools have been used in the preparation of the manuscript, authors must disclose this in the Methods section and/or in a statement in the title page. The disclosure must specify the tool used and the nature of its application. AI-generated content must not be reproduced without verification, and all references, data, and factual claims generated with AI assistance must be independently verified by the authors. The use of AI in the generation of images, figures, or data is not permitted.
Genesis Biologica has a zero-tolerance approach to plagiarism in all its forms, including direct copying, paraphrasing without attribution, and self-plagiarism (the inappropriate reuse of an author's own previously published text). All submissions are screened using validated similarity detection software prior to peer review. Manuscripts found to contain unacceptable levels of similarity to published sources will be returned to the authors or rejected without review. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Editorial Office will follow COPE guidelines for post-publication correction or retraction.
Genesis Biologica does not accept manuscripts that have been published in whole or in substantial part in another journal or publication, or that are simultaneously submitted elsewhere. Salami slicing — the practice of splitting a single study into several manuscripts to inflate publication numbers — is also considered duplicate publication and is not permitted. Authors must confirm, in the cover letter, that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.
Genesis Biologica welcomes submissions based on work previously deposited on recognised preprint servers (e.g., bioRxiv, medRxiv, Research Square). Authors must disclose the existence of a preprint version in the cover letter and, where possible, link the preprint to the published article following acceptance. Posting of the accepted and published version on a preprint server after publication is permitted under the journal's open-access licence.
If a published article is found to contain errors that do not affect the scientific integrity of the work, Genesis Biologica will publish a Correction Notice. Authors who identify errors in their published work are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office promptly. Corrections will be linked to the original article via the journal's online platform.
Where a published article is found to contain fundamental errors affecting the validity of the conclusions, or where evidence of research misconduct is established, Genesis Biologica will consider retraction in accordance with COPE guidelines. The decision to retract is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, the authors' institutions. Retraction Notices will be clearly linked to the retracted article and will remain accessible in the publication record.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision to reject their manuscript was made in error — on grounds of scientific merit or procedural fairness — may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the rejection decision and must clearly articulate the grounds for the appeal with reference to specific reviewer or editorial comments. Decisions on appeals are final. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the scientific opinion of reviewers will not normally be entertained.
Authors, reviewers, or readers who wish to raise a concern about any aspect of the editorial process, the conduct of editors or reviewers, or a published article are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief in writing. All complaints will be handled in confidence and in accordance with COPE guidelines. Where a complaint involves a member of the Editorial Board or Editor-in-Chief, it may be escalated to the journal's publisher.
Genesis Biologica is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity. All parties — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with internationally recognised principles, including those set out by the COPE, the ICMJE, and relevant national research integrity guidelines. Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to: fabrication or falsification of data; plagiarism; duplicate publication; undisclosed conflicts of interest; authorship manipulation; and peer review manipulation.
Digital images and figures must accurately represent the original experimental data. Acceptable image processing includes adjustment of brightness, contrast, or colour balance, provided such adjustments are applied uniformly to the entire image and do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information in the original. It is not permissible to: combine parts of different images into a single figure without explicit labelling; remove, add, or move features within an image; or apply enhancement selectively to specific areas. Figures depicting gels, blots, or histological sections are subject to particular scrutiny. Authors may be asked to provide original unprocessed image files during peer review or after publication.
Data fabrication — the practice of inventing experimental results — is a serious form of research misconduct. Any manuscript found to contain fabricated data will be rejected or retracted, and the Editorial Office will notify the authors' institutions and, where appropriate, relevant funding bodies, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Data manipulation — the selective reporting, omission, or alteration of data with the intent to misrepresent experimental outcomes — is equally unacceptable. Authors are expected to report all primary data honestly and transparently, including results that may not support the central hypothesis of the study.
All editorial decisions are made by qualified editors based on the recommendations of independent peer reviewers and on an objective assessment of scientific merit. Genesis Biologica is committed to fair, transparent, and impartial editorial processes. Editors are required to recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest.
Following publication, the corresponding author is responsible for handling all correspondence related to the article on behalf of the author team. Requests for data, materials, or clarification of methods from readers or other researchers should be responded to in a timely manner. The Editorial Office may occasionally forward correspondence received from readers to the corresponding author.
For all editorial enquiries, including pre-submission questions, appeals, complaints, and correspondence regarding published articles, authors may contact the Editorial Office at:
Editorial Office, Genesis Biologica Website: https://genesisbiologica.com Submission Portal: https://genesisbiologica.com/Default.aspx
The Editorial Office will endeavour to respond to all enquiries within five working days.
Last updated: 2025 Genesis Biologica — Advancing Biological Sciences Globally
Genesis Biologica is committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent editorial process that upholds the highest standards of scientific publishing. The following describes the complete workflow from initial submission to final online publication. All steps are governed by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
The editorial workflow at Genesis Biologica consists of the following sequential stages:
The Editorial Office will first examine whether the submitted manuscript has been prepared strictly according to the official Genesis Biologica manuscript template.
This initial check is carried out before any editorial evaluation of scientific content takes place. The purpose of this step is to ensure that all manuscripts entering the review system are presented in a consistent and reviewer-friendly format, and to avoid unnecessary delays at later stages.
If the manuscript has not been formatted in accordance with the official template, it will be returned to the corresponding author before editorial evaluation with a request to comply with the Instructions to Authors. Authors are expected to resubmit the reformatted manuscript within 14 days. Failure to resubmit within this period may result in the submission being closed. Authors may request an extension by contacting the Editorial Office.
Only manuscripts correctly formatted according to the template will advance to Step 2.
Approximate timeframe: 2–5 working days
All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism and AI-generated content screening.
Only manuscripts satisfying both of the following criteria proceed further:
using recognised similarity detection software such as Turnitin and/or iThenticate (or equivalent editorial tools).
The similarity index is calculated by comparing the manuscript against published literature and internet sources. Self-citations and correctly formatted quotations may be considered in borderline cases, but authors are reminded that self-plagiarism is not exempt from this policy. The AI-generated content threshold has been established to ensure the originality and intellectual authenticity of published research, in accordance with the journal's AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.
Manuscripts exceeding these limits will be returned to the corresponding author for correction before peer review. The corresponding author will receive a screening report and will be invited to revise and resubmit the manuscript within 14 days, ensuring the manuscript meets both thresholds. Re-screened manuscripts that continue to fail will be rejected without further consideration.
Authors are advised that the screening outcomes are treated with confidentiality and are not communicated to peer reviewers.
Approximate timeframe: 2–5 working days
The manuscript proceeds to editorial assessment to determine whether it fits the aims and scope of Genesis Biologica.
This assessment is conducted by a member of the Editorial Office or a senior handling editor with relevant expertise. The manuscript is evaluated against the journal's published scope, which encompasses Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, Genetics and Genomics, Developmental Biology, Evolutionary Biology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Structural Biology, Systems Biology, Bioinformatics, Neurobiology, Immunology, Cancer Biology, Plant Biology, Ecology and Environmental Biology, Nanotechnology, Nanomedicine, and Phytomedicine.
Manuscripts deemed outside the scope of Genesis Biologica will be rejected at this stage without peer review. The corresponding author will be notified promptly, typically within five working days, and will be free to submit the work to a more suitable journal. Rejection on scope grounds does not reflect on the scientific quality of the work and authors are encouraged to identify a more appropriate venue.
Manuscripts with an interdisciplinary scope that bridges two or more subject areas within the journal's remit are actively welcomed.
Approximate timeframe: 3–7 working days
Manuscripts that pass the scope assessment undergo a technical compliance review. This step confirms that:
If minor omissions are identified, the Editorial Office will contact the corresponding author to supply the missing elements before editor assignment. This should not be confused with a request for scientific revision; it is an administrative check only.
Approximate timeframe: 2–5 working days
Upon successful completion of all screening steps, the manuscript is assigned to a Handling Editor (also referred to as an Associate Editor) with appropriate expertise in the subject area. The Handling Editor is a member of the Genesis Biologica Editorial Board or an external academic invited specifically for the manuscript.
The Handling Editor's role is to oversee the peer review process, evaluate reviewer recommendations in light of the manuscript's scientific content, and make an informed recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Handling Editors are required to declare any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript and to recuse themselves where necessary.
Approximate timeframe: 3–7 working days
The Handling Editor identifies and invites a minimum of two independent peer reviewers with recognised expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are selected from the Genesis Biologica reviewer database, the manuscript's reference list, and other academic sources.
Genesis Biologica uses a double-anonymous peer review model, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities during the review process. This model is chosen for its capacity to minimise bias and ensure that reviews are based solely on the scientific merit of the work.
Reviewers who are affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors, who have co-authored work with the authors within the preceding three years, or who have any declared conflict of interest will not be invited. Authors may suggest up to four preferred reviewers and may request the exclusion of up to two individuals, with reasons, at the time of submission. The Editorial Office is not obliged to follow these suggestions.
Reviewers are given seven days to accept or decline the invitation. If a reviewer declines, an alternative is invited without delay.
Approximate timeframe: 3–10 working days
Reviewers who accept the invitation are granted access to the anonymised manuscript via the journal's online submission platform. They are asked to complete their review within 21 days of accepting the invitation.
Each reviewer is requested to submit:
Reviewers are provided with the Genesis Biologica Guidelines to Reviewers to assist them in conducting a thorough and constructive assessment. The Editorial Office may contact reviewers who have not responded within the deadline and will seek replacement reviewers if necessary.
The Handling Editor may also invite a third reviewer in cases where the first two reviews are substantially divergent, or where specialist expertise on a particular aspect of the work is required.
Approximate timeframe: 21–35 days from reviewer acceptance
Upon receipt of reviewer reports, the Handling Editor carefully considers the reviews alongside an independent reading of the manuscript and formulates a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief, or a delegated senior editor, makes the final editorial decision. Possible outcomes are:
The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form. This outcome is relatively rare following initial review and typically occurs only where reviewers find the manuscript to be of exceptional quality with no significant concerns.
The manuscript requires minor improvements — for example, clarification of specific points, correction of minor inconsistencies, additional discussion of particular issues, or minor formatting adjustments. Authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript within 14 days, together with a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Minor revisions are typically assessed by the Handling Editor without return to the reviewers, though this is at the editor's discretion.
The manuscript has scientific merit but requires substantial revision — for example, additional experiments or analyses, fundamental reinterpretation of data, major restructuring of the text, or more comprehensive treatment of the literature. Authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript within 60 days, accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter. Revised manuscripts submitted after the major revision deadline may be treated as new submissions.
Major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation. The Handling Editor will inform reviewers of the authors' revisions and request that they assess whether the concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
The manuscript is rejected without invitation to revise and resubmit. Rejection may occur at any stage of the editorial process on the grounds of insufficient scientific novelty, fundamental methodological weaknesses, data that do not support the conclusions, a topic outside the journal's scope, or concerns regarding research integrity. Rejection decisions are final; however, authors may submit a formal appeal (see Guidelines to Authors, Section 41).
All editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author via the journal submission platform.
Approximate timeframe for decision after peer review: 5–14 days
When authors submit a revised manuscript, the Editorial Office first verifies that the revision has been submitted within the specified timeframe and that the response letter addresses all reviewer comments. Incomplete revisions may be returned to the authors.
The revised manuscript and response letter are then assessed by the Handling Editor. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the Handling Editor may:
Genesis Biologica endeavours to limit the number of revision rounds to two wherever possible, in the interests of author experience and editorial efficiency. Persistent failure to address reviewer concerns adequately may result in rejection.
Approximate timeframe: 14–35 days depending on revision scope
When the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief are satisfied that all reviewer concerns have been addressed, a formal acceptance notification is issued to the corresponding author. This notification confirms that the manuscript is accepted for publication in Genesis Biologica and initiates the production process.
The acceptance notification will include information regarding the Article Processing Charge (APC), if applicable, and will confirm the Creative Commons licence under which the article will be published.
Approximate timeframe: 3–7 days after final editorial assessment
Accepted manuscripts are transferred to the production team for professional copyediting. The copyediting process attends to language, consistency, grammar, punctuation, figure formatting, reference completeness, and conformity with journal style. Substantive changes to the scientific content are not made during copyediting.
Following copyediting, a typeset author proof is generated and sent to the corresponding author. Authors are requested to review the proof carefully and to return it with any corrections within 72 hours. Only corrections of typographical or factual errors introduced during the production process should be made at this stage; the introduction of new text, additional references, or changes to the scientific content is not permitted following acceptance.
Upon receipt of the approved author proof, the article is prepared for online publication. A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned to the article, providing a permanent, citable link to the published version.
Prior to inclusion in a specific journal issue, the accepted and typeset article is published online as an Online-First (Ahead of Print) article. This enables immediate access to the final, citable, fully peer-reviewed article without delay. The Online-First article carries the assigned DOI and is indexed in bibliographic databases from the date of online publication.
Approximate overall timeline from submission to Online-First publication: 6–12 weeks, subject to reviewer availability and revision timescales.
Online-First articles are subsequently incorporated into a scheduled journal issue, at which point final volume, issue, and page number information are assigned. The article is archived in accordance with the journal's digital preservation policy, and all metadata are submitted to relevant bibliographic databases and indexing services, as well as to open-access repositories.
All timelines are provided as illustrative estimates only. Actual timescales may vary depending on the availability of suitable reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the time required by authors to complete revisions.
Genesis Biologica is committed to a peer review process that is ethical, impartial, and constructive. Reviewers are selected on the basis of expertise and independence. Editorial decisions are made on scientific grounds alone, regardless of the nationality, institutional affiliation, or academic seniority of the authors. The double-anonymous model is employed to protect the integrity of the process for both authors and reviewers.
For enquiries regarding the status of a submission, authors may contact the Editorial Office at any stage. We appreciate your patience and thank all reviewers who generously contribute their expertise to support the quality of Genesis Biologica.
Last updated: 2025 Genesis Biologica — Advancing Biological Sciences Globally
Peer review is the foundation upon which the credibility and quality of scientific publishing rests. At Genesis Biologica, we regard our reviewers as partners in advancing biological science, and we are deeply grateful for the expertise, time, and intellectual rigour that you bring to this shared endeavour. These guidelines have been prepared to help you conduct reviews that are thorough, constructive, and consistent with the highest international standards of scholarly publishing.
We ask that you approach every manuscript with the same objectivity and commitment to excellence that you would expect of reviewers evaluating your own work. Your input shapes not only the quality of what we publish, but also the development of individual researchers and the field as a whole.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to Genesis Biologica.
Peer reviewers are independent scientific experts who evaluate the novelty, scientific rigour, methodological soundness, clarity, and ethical propriety of manuscripts submitted to Genesis Biologica. The review process exists not merely to filter submissions, but to improve them. Your role is not that of a gatekeeper alone, but of a scientific mentor offering constructive criticism that helps authors strengthen their work.
The ideal review is one that: (i) identifies the genuine strengths of the manuscript; (ii) clearly articulates any scientific weaknesses, gaps, or concerns; (iii) suggests concrete, actionable improvements; and (iv) provides a clear and reasoned recommendation to the editor. A high-quality review is specific, evidence-based, and respectful in tone.
All information pertaining to submitted manuscripts is strictly confidential. You must not disclose the existence of the manuscript, its content, its authors (if known to you), or any details of the work to any third party without the prior written consent of the Editor-in-Chief.
Specifically, reviewers must not:
Breaches of confidentiality will be treated as serious misconduct and reported in accordance with COPE guidelines.
By accepting a review invitation, you agree to uphold the ethical responsibilities set out in these guidelines. Your assessment must be conducted with integrity, objectivity, and good faith. You must not use the review process to gain personal advantage — for example, by inappropriately delaying the publication of competing work, using information from the manuscript to advance your own research without attribution, or attempting to identify the authors in a way that compromises the double-anonymous review process.
Reviewers are also expected to report any concerns about research misconduct identified during the review (including data fabrication, image manipulation, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest) to the editor rather than addressing them solely in comments to the authors.
You must decline a review invitation if you have any actual or perceived conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
If you are uncertain whether a potential conflict exists, err on the side of disclosure and contact the editor for guidance before proceeding. Declaration of a conflict is not a reflection on your integrity; it is a demonstration of it.
When you receive a review invitation, please respond promptly — ideally within three working days — to confirm whether you are able to accept or must decline. A prompt response, even a decline, is invaluable to the editorial process, as it allows the editor to seek alternative reviewers without delay.
If you are unable to accept an invitation, we would be grateful if you could suggest one or two alternative experts who may be willing and qualified to review the manuscript. Please note that alternative reviewer suggestions are subject to the same conflict-of-interest considerations.
If you accept the invitation, you commit to completing and submitting your review within the timeframe specified (normally 21 days). If circumstances arise that prevent timely completion, please contact the Editorial Office as early as possible.
Genesis Biologica requests that reviewers submit their completed assessment within 21 days of accepting the invitation. We recognise that this represents a significant commitment of time and effort and are grateful for your responsiveness.
If you require additional time, please inform the Editorial Office before the deadline has passed. We will accommodate reasonable requests for extension wherever possible. Reviewers who consistently fail to submit reviews within agreed timeframes, or who accept invitations and subsequently do not respond, may be removed from the journal's reviewer database.
Reviews of revised manuscripts (second-round reviews) are typically shorter in scope, as reviewers need only assess whether previous concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and are requested within 14 days.
Your central task as a reviewer is to assess whether the reported findings are scientifically valid, significant, and original. The following questions may guide your evaluation:
Your assessment of scientific quality should be specific: rather than stating that "the conclusions are not supported," identify the precise finding and the specific reason why support is lacking.
Genesis Biologica publishes research that makes a genuine and original contribution to biological knowledge. As a reviewer, you are asked to assess whether the submitted work offers new findings, concepts, methods, or interpretations — not merely confirmatory or incremental additions to the literature.
Questions to consider include:
If you consider that the scientific novelty is insufficient for publication in Genesis Biologica, please articulate this assessment clearly and with reference to specific published work that overlaps with or pre-empts the submitted findings.
A rigorous evaluation of the methods is one of the most important components of peer review. Your assessment should address:
Where you identify specific methodological weaknesses, please suggest how these might be addressed — for example, through additional experiments, analysis of existing data in a different way, or clearer reporting.
Statistical rigour is fundamental to the validity of scientific conclusions. When evaluating the statistical analysis, please consider:
Reviewers with specific statistical expertise are encouraged to apply the SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) guidelines as a reference framework.
All data presented in the manuscript — whether in the text, figures, or tables — should be evaluated for clarity, accuracy, and completeness. As a reviewer, please consider:
When evaluating figures and tables, please consider the following:
Please assess whether the manuscript demonstrates adequate engagement with the relevant literature:
Please note that reviewers should not request the citation of their own work unless the omission represents a genuine scientific gap and is directly relevant to the work under review. Requesting self-citations to inflate citation counts is a form of reviewer misconduct.
Please verify that the manuscript includes all required ethical declarations:
If you notice that required ethical statements are absent, please flag this in both your comments to the authors and your confidential comments to the editor.
Research involving laboratory animals must comply with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. When reviewing such manuscripts, please consider whether:
Failure to comply with ARRIVE reporting standards should be raised in your comments to the authors and flagged to the editor.
Research involving human participants must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable national regulations. Please assess whether:
For manuscripts reporting clinical trials, please verify adherence to CONSORT guidelines and confirm:
Reviewers should be alert to the possible use of AI-generated content within manuscripts. While Genesis Biologica permits the use of AI tools for language editing, AI must not be listed as an author and must not be used to generate data, figures, or factual claims.
If you suspect that substantial portions of the manuscript's scientific content may have been generated by AI tools without appropriate disclosure, please note this concern in your confidential comments to the editor. Indicators may include unusually generic phrasing, imprecise terminology, inconsistent citation practices, or a lack of specificity in methodological description.
The integrity of scientific images — particularly gel images, blots, microscopy, and histological sections — is a critical concern. As a reviewer, please remain alert to signs of potential image manipulation, including:
If you have concerns about image integrity, please report them in your confidential comments to the editor rather than in your comments to the authors, as this is an editorial matter requiring investigation.
Beyond image integrity and data reporting, reviewers should be attentive to broader indicators of research integrity concerns, including:
Concerns of this nature should always be communicated to the editor confidentially. It is not the reviewer's role to adjudicate on suspected misconduct, but to ensure that editorial attention is drawn to potential concerns.
Genesis Biologica expects all reviews to be constructive, respectful, and professional in tone. Every manuscript submitted to the journal represents a significant investment of time and effort by the authors, many of whom may be at early stages of their research careers.
A high-quality, constructive review:
Rudeness, condescension, and personal criticism are never acceptable and are considered a form of reviewer misconduct.
Major comments should address concerns that, if unresolved, would render the manuscript unsuitable for publication. These typically relate to:
Number your major comments sequentially (Major Comment 1, Major Comment 2, etc.) and be as specific as possible. Indicate for each comment whether you are requesting additional experiments, re-analysis of existing data, or clarification or revision of the text.
Minor comments address points that do not affect the fundamental scientific soundness of the work but that would improve clarity, completeness, or accuracy. These may include:
Number your minor comments sequentially (Minor Comment 1, Minor Comment 2, etc.) to facilitate the preparation of a point-by-point response by the authors.
At the conclusion of your review, you are asked to select one of the following recommendations:
Your recommendation should be consistent with the concerns raised in your written review. It is not appropriate to recommend rejection in comments while selecting "minor revision" in the recommendation field, or vice versa.
The confidential comments field is visible only to the editor and is not shared with the authors. You should use this section to:
Your comments to the authors should be complete, clear, and structured. A recommended format is as follows:
Please ensure that your comments to the authors contain no information from which they could infer your identity.
When you are invited to review a revised version of a manuscript, your task is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed your previous concerns and those of the co-reviewer. A point-by-point response letter from the authors will normally be provided alongside the revised manuscript.
Please assess each previous concern systematically and indicate clearly in your second-round review whether you consider each point to have been: (i) satisfactorily addressed; (ii) partially addressed (with remaining concerns); or (iii) not addressed. If you raise new concerns that were not mentioned in your original review, please explain why these are being raised for the first time.
Second-round reviews typically take considerably less time than initial reviews, and we appreciate your continued engagement with the manuscript.
Genesis Biologica values and recognises the contribution of our reviewers. All completed reviews are acknowledged via the journal's online submission system. Reviewers who complete high-quality reviews in a timely manner may be recognised in the journal's annual reviewer recognition programme.
We encourage all reviewers to register their reviewing activity with Publons (Web of Science) or an equivalent verified reviewer recognition service, which provides a verifiable record of reviewing contributions for inclusion in academic profiles and grant applications.
The identities of peer reviewers are protected. Genesis Biologica operates a double-anonymous peer review system, which means neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other's identities during the review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors at any stage without the explicit consent of the reviewer.
Reviewers should take care throughout the review process to avoid inadvertently revealing their identity through the use of identifiable language (e.g., "In our previous publication...") or through the metadata embedded in returned document files.
Reviewer misconduct, while uncommon, can take several forms, including:
Where reviewer misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Office will investigate in accordance with COPE guidelines. Reviewers found to have engaged in misconduct may be removed from the journal's reviewer database and the matter may be escalated to their institutional employers.
The final editorial decision on all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the appointed Handling Editor. While reviewer recommendations carry significant weight, editors are not obliged to follow them in every instance. Editors may seek additional opinions, override a recommendation on the basis of a broader assessment of the manuscript's contribution and fit, or consult members of the Editorial Board in cases of disagreement.
Reviewers are advised not to attempt to infer or influence the final editorial outcome beyond submitting their assessment honestly and professionally. Communications to the editor outside the formal review process — other than to raise a specific integrity concern — are not appropriate.
Equally, authors should not contact reviewers directly regarding the review of their manuscript. Any approach of this nature should be reported immediately to the Editorial Office.
For enquiries regarding a review invitation, the status of a review assignment, or any concern arising during the review process, please contact the Editorial Office:
Editorial Office, Genesis Biologica Website: https://genesisbiologica.com
We thank you sincerely for your dedication to the peer review process and for your contribution to the quality and integrity of Genesis Biologica.
Last updated: 2025 Genesis Biologica — Advancing Biological Sciences Globally
Genesis Biologica follows the COPE Core Practices on authorship, plagiarism, data integrity, and conflicts of interest, and requires ethical approval statements (e.g., IRB/ethics committee or IACUC approval) for research involving human participants or animals. See the publication ethics and malpractice statement on the Editorial Policies page for the full text.
The article processing charge is waived in full for every manuscript submitted on or before 31 December 2026. From 1 January 2027 an accepted manuscript carries a single charge of £45 / €55 / US$65 / ₹6,000, billed in the currency appropriate to the corresponding author's location. There is no submission fee and no page, colour or supplementary-material charge. The charge falls due only after acceptance — never at submission or during peer review — and payment status is never disclosed to editors or reviewers. See Section 37 above and the fees policy.
Sign in as an Author, Reviewer, Editor, or Publisher to get started.
Go to Manuscript Submission & Login →