Journal La Lifesci maintains a rigorous, multi-stage peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity, accuracy, and novelty. The journal employs a double-blind peer review model, meaning the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are completely concealed from each other throughout the entire evaluation.

The complete editorial and review workflow consists of the following phases:

Phase 1: Preliminary Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor. This phase typically takes 1 to 2 weeks and covers:

• Scope Alignment: Assessment of whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope.

• Technical Compliance: Verification that the manuscript adheres to the formatting and author guidelines.

• Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are screened using professional similarity-detection software. Papers with high similarity indices or evidence of text recycling will be rejected immediately without further review.

Phase 2: First Round of Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two (2) to three (3) independent external reviewers who are experts in the specific subject matter.

• Reviewers are given 3 to 4 weeks to submit a detailed evaluation report.

• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s scientific novelty, methodological rigor, ethical standards, data interpretation, and the currency/relevance of the references.

Phase 3: The Revision Process & Multiple Rounds of Review

Rarely is a paper accepted in its original form. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editors will issue one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

• Minor Revisions: Authors are typically given 2 weeks to address straightforward corrections or clarifications. These revised papers are usually evaluated directly by the Handling Editor.

• Major Revisions & Subsequent Rounds: If a manuscript requires significant experimental, analytical, or structural changes, authors are given 4 to 6 weeks to submit a revised version along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers.

• Successive Review Rounds: Revised manuscripts requiring major revisions are automatically sent back for a Second Round (and if necessary, a Third Round) of peer review. The original reviewers (or new experts, if a tie-breaker is required) will re-evaluate whether the authors have adequately resolved the scientific shortcomings. A paper will continue through revision rounds until it either fully meets the journal’s high scientific standards or is rejected.

Phase 4: Final Editorial Decision

The peer-review process is advisory. The final authority to accept or reject a manuscript rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief. This decision is based on the consensus of the reviewer reports, the quality of the authors' revisions, and the manuscript's overall contribution to the literature. Once a final decision is reached, it cannot be appealed unless a significant procedural error can be proven.