All manuscripts are received by the editor ( and are considered as a confidential document. Receipt of each article is acknowledged by e-mail to the contacting author within three working days. The manuscript is read and examined for conformity to the Instructions for Authors by the editor. Failure to meet the criteria outlined may result in return of the manuscript for correction before evaluation.

The editor or members of the editorial board are not to be involved in their own manuscript evaluation or in the evaluation of manuscripts emanating from their own department. Under no circumstances the editor should contact the authors to discuss matters related with the manuscript. In the same way, the editor and the referees must never refer, in conversation or in print, to the work that the manuscript describes before it has been published. Neither should the information it contains be used for advancement of the own work.

All manuscripts, including those of the editor or members of the Editorial Board, will be subjected to the same review process. All of them will be handled anonymously and submitted to peer review omitting authors names and affiliations.

Editorial process scheme


The editor selects two or three referees who are invited, in confidence, to evaluate the manuscript according to the following aspects:

• Originality of the work.

• Relevance to scientific knowledge in Biotechnology.

• Background: Theoretical background adequate. Hypothesis, objectives and clear contribution to Biotechnology. Updated and quality references: for original articles (research, short communications, technical notes, biotechnology issues for developing countries), at least 75% of the references must be at the same time from ISI Science Citation Index ( and from the last decade. Citations of thesis, personal communications, and unpublished data are not allowed.

• Methodology: Materials and methods appropriate and adequately described. Sound experimental design.

• Results: Data concise and sufficient. Statistical analysis when appropriate. Efficiency measurements. Figures clear and correct, only essential data should be included in figures. Elimination of figures, graphs and tables which add little or could be replaced by a few sentences or a statement of numerical values is recommended.

• Discussion: In-depth discussion, correct interpretation.

• Formal Aspects: Correct language, references properly cited. High quality figures. Adherence to usual and consistent nomenclature. Title and summary sufficiently informative.

All the above items will be evaluated as outstanding, good, fair, mediocre or poor by an assessment form given to evaluators.

The article could be: accepted with no further revision; accepted after minor revision (no further review required); accepted only after major revisions; inappropriate for the journal; rejected.

If the paper is accepted after major revisions, it will be submitted again for peer review to the same evaluators.


The authors are requested to do the galley proof before the article is available for public. They must check the HTML. Upon acceptance of this version, the PDF will be generated and no further changes will be accepted.

Once all formats (HTML and PDF) are ready, the article is announced and becomes available for all audiences.

Supported by UNESCO / MIRCEN network 
Mail to Editor | Home