Journal of Biomedical Science Submission Guide

Source: Journal of Biomedical Science on BMC, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Biomedical substance. The journal requires substantive biomedical contribution.

2. Methodological rigor. Experimental, computational, or clinical work must be top-tier.

3. APC funding. Authors must plan APC funding.

Recent issues span:

• Cancer biology and tumor immunology
• Neurodegeneration and neurobiology
• Cardiovascular and metabolic biology
• Stem cells and regenerative medicine
• Drug delivery and biomaterials
• Microbiome and biomedical implications
• AI/ML in biomedical research
• Translational biomedical research

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Journal of Biomedical Science on BMC. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1186/s12929-023-00945-2
• 10.1186/s12929-024-01023-7
• 10.1186/s12929-024-01156-9

• Initial decision: typically 4-8 weeks
• First decision after review: typically 8-14 weeks
• Revision rounds: typically 1-2 major revisions to acceptance
• Time to publication after acceptance: weeks (online publication)

Start with the official rules for upload mechanics, then judge the draft itself. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes the Journal of Biomedical Science fit screen before upload, especially around wrong biomedical OA venue chosen, methodological rigor doesn't clear top-tier bar, and aPC funding not planned. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Wrong biomedical OA venue chosen

Journal of Biomedical Science competes with BMC Biology, CMLS, Communications Biology, Cell Reports, and PLOS Biology. The fix is informed routing.

Check whether your Journal of Biomedical Science manuscript passes the wrong biomedical oa venue chosen screen →

Methodological rigor doesn't clear top-tier bar

The fix is rigorous execution.

Check whether your Journal of Biomedical Science manuscript passes the methodological rigor doesn't clear top-tier bar screen →

APC funding not planned

Gold OA requires APC funding. The fix is to confirm funding before submission. A Journal of Biomedical Science manuscript readiness check can identify whether biomedical framing, methodological rigor, and APC planning align before submission.

Check whether your Journal of Biomedical Science manuscript passes the apc funding not planned screen →

Journal of Biomedical Science requires these at first submission:

• main manuscript file in BMC Microsoft Word template format (or LaTeX equivalent; editable files required for production)
• cover letter explaining why the manuscript should be published in JBS, the biomedical contribution, declaration of any potential competing interests, confirmation that all authors have approved the submission, and confirmation that the content has not been published elsewhere
• author byline with full names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs
• structured abstract per BMC format (Background / Methods / Results / Conclusions)
• ethics statements: IRB approval and informed consent for human-subjects research; IACUC approval for animal protocols; biosafety statements for regulated organisms
• competing-interests declaration (reviewers and editors are similarly required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from review)
• data availability statement with deposit references (NCBI, EBI, PRIDE, Dryad, Zenodo, etc.)
• author CRediT contribution statement
• suggested reviewers with institutional email addresses (BMC enforces institutional-email verification per cross-portfolio policy)
• $3,890 USD APC funding declaration (institutional BMC transformative agreement, funder grant, author-paid, or LMIC waiver via Research4Life)
• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process
• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript (editable files mandatory at revision regardless of first-submission format)

In our pre-submission review work for Journal of Biomedical Science, the most common artifact-related issue is multi-omics submissions without data-deposit accessions cited inline. The journal's editorial culture treats deposit-at-submission as a baseline expectation; multi-omics submissions promising data deposit at acceptance face routine technical-screen returns before substantive peer review begins.

Run a Journal of Biomedical Science pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's biomedical-translation bar.

In our pre-submission review work for Journal of Biomedical Science, manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at BMC biomedical-translation journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a specific failure pattern in current biomedical practice that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject mechanism-only submissions without translational implications and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around bench-to-bedside framings.

Day 0 to 3: Editorial Manager intake and BMC editorial-office technical check

The platform performs automated checks (template compliance, declarations, ethics references, ORCID linking, deposit-accession presence). BMC editorial staff verify the cover letter, data availability statement, and competing-interests declarations.

Day 3 to 21: Section Editor desk-screen on biomedical-translation depth

A Section Editor (matched to molecular and cellular biomedicine, biomedical imaging, infectious disease and immunology, clinical biomedicine, biomedical engineering and informatics, or translational neuroscience) reviews scope fit and whether the manuscript clears the biomedical-translation bar.

Week 3 to 8: External peer review (single-anonymous)

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both biomedical subfield and any specialized techniques used. Editors consult Editorial Board members where the reviewer recommendation is split.

Week 8 to 14: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the BMC median window, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 4-8 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal through BMC's standard appeal procedure.

• Is Journal of Biomedical Science a good journal?
• BMC Biology Submission Guide
• Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences Submission Guide

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Journal of Biomedical Science package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.

• If the abstract still points toward wrong biomedical OA venue chosen, revise the central claim before upload.
• If the evidence package leaves methodological rigor doesn't clear top-tier bar, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.
• If the cover letter cannot resolve aPC funding not planned, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.

Last verified: April 2026 against Journal of Biomedical Science editorial pages.