Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal publishes papers in all sections of biomedical chemistry and related disciplines, including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, bioinformatics, enzymology, molecular biology, biochemical pharmacology, molecular and cellular medicine, clinical biochemistry, etc.

In connection with the launch of a new publishing project specializing in methodological aspects of biomedical research, all articles of a methodological nature (original and review articles) should be sent to the editorial board of Biomedical Chemistry: Research and Methods.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Clinical studies performed using biological materials obtained from patients and/or
healthy volunteers must contain information about the informed consent of patients to participate in the
study and the use of their bioassays and a corresponding link to the approval of the study by the relevant
ethical committee(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


The journal accepts REVIEWS both ordered by the editors/members of the editorial board
and also proposed by the authors. In the latter case, the authors should submit first the title of the review
and a detailed summary (300-600 words) by e-mail (biomed@ibmc.msk.ru) for a pilot approval of the

proposed review and its relevance for this journal.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


SHORT COMMUNICATIONS refer to works containing
high priority new data. Works describing phenomenological results are considered only in the case
of a description of a reliably confirmed new phenomenon.

Short communications are limited by 15000 characters, including
10-12 references, 2-3 figures or tables.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


In the "MISCELLANEOUS" section, messages from the Editors are published, as well
as letters expressing the author's personal point of view on a scientific event or publication on the
subject of the journal, letters to the Editors, chronicles of congresses, congresses and conferences
(no later than 2 months after the event).

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Biomedical Chemistry uses an external peer review for all incoming materials. Highly qualified specialists with experience in a particular scientific area and having publications on topics directly related to the reviewed work are attracted as reviewers. Members of the editorial board can also act as reviewers for works related to their scientific interests. In addition, at the stage of initial selection in obvious cases members of the editorial board make a collegial decision on the compliance of the proposed material with the profile of the journal.

Materials submitted for publication are reviewed by at least two reviewers. It is recommended that reviewers adhere to the Guidelines for Reviewers. The maximum time limit for submitting a review is no more than one month from the date of confirmation of consent to review. In case of divergence of opinion of reviewers, the decision about the fate of materials is made by the editorial board on the basis of submitted reviews. The article can also be sent for additional reviewing. The authors have the right to disagree with the reviewer's opinion and provide the editorial board with a reasoned response to the review. All correspondence between the reviewers and the author is conducted exclusively through the editorial board. The data of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

When resolving any disputes that arose in the process of reviewing the article, the decision of the editorial board is final.

The article sent to the authors for revision must be returned in corrected form no later than two months later. The authors may also attach a cover letter, which contains answers to the comments and explains all the changes. In case the authors do not agree with some comments, such letter is obligatory.

If the article under the recommendation of the reviewer has undergone significant revision, it is sent for re-review to the same reviewer who made the critical remarks.

The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board.