Peer Reviewer's Guide
The rules outlined on this page applies to the whole review practice of the journals.
The following types of contribution to the journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews and Insight articles. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us.
Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript.
Online manuscript review
We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via SCIPIO.ro online system by following the link provided in the editor's request for review. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems.
Criteria for publication
The journals receive submissions than they can't publish. To be published in the journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:
- Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
- Of importance to scientists in the specific field.
- Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
- Accept, with or without editorial revisions
- Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
- Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
- Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using people who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient.
We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.
The journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor, or if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.
We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.
Editing referees' reports
As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.
Peer-review publication policies
All contributions submitted to journal that are selected for peer-review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.
As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential, and not to redistribute them without permission from the journal. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. By this and by other means, the journal endeavour to keep the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date other than in the specific case of its embargoed press release available to registered journalists. Although we go to every effort to ensure reviewers honour their promise to ensure confidentiality, we are not responsible for the conduct of reviewers.
Ethics and security
The journal editor may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.
The Journal is intended to serve those occupationally involved in subjects it covers and through the publication of timely and reliable information in several formats.
Technical papers describe and interpret the results of original investigations. They are significant in their findings and increase the body of knowledge upon which decision-making and policy are based. Of particular interest are topics that are relevant to science and technology issues and problems emerging from contemporary directions in regulatory policy-making.
Notebook papers offer a forum for rapid disclosure of new technical or administrative studies, or for significant comment on previously published papers. Publication of a Notebook paper will not preclude later consideration of a technical paper on the subject. If the Notebook paper is a comment on a previously published paper, the Notebook paper will be published with a reply from the author(s) of the previously published paper.
Review papers synthesize existing research and define problems to be addressed by future research. Reviews should be critical in nature while noting the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of current knowledge.
All papers submitted for consideration in the Journal are subject to a minimum of two external peer reviews.
Guidelines for Editorial Decisions
The Journal encourages the submission of manuscripts based on original research that are judged to make a novel and important contribution to understanding the molecular and cellular basis of biological processes. Manuscripts that fall outside these editorial guidelines may be declined without full review.
As a condition of publication, all authors must transfer copyright to the Journal. Manuscripts submitted under multiple authorship are reviewed on the assumption that all listed authors concur in the submission and that the final version has been seen and approved by all authors.
Allegations of fraud or misconduct - be they violations of the standard norms for publishing original research, publication without approval of all authors, plagiarism, republication of data used previously without acknowledgement, or inappropriate graphics manipulation - will be investigated thoroughly. If, after due process involving the Journal editors, editorial staff and the Journal Publications Committee, a paper is found to contain ethical violations, it will be rejected or withdrawn and the matter referred to institutional officials.
Authors of papers published in the Journal are obligated to honor any reasonable request by qualified investigators for unique propagative materials that are described in the paper. If computer software programs are developed and used in submitted manuscripts, the programs must be made available to the reviewer upon request. The source code or the program must be made available, either commercially or in downloadable form from the authors, if the manuscript is accepted for publication. The Editors may deny further publication rights in the journal to authors unwilling to abide by these principles.
Submission of a manuscript implies that the work described has not been published (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis); that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; and that its publication has been approved by all coauthors and the responsible authorities at the institute where the work was conducted. Submission also implies that the authors have already obtained all necessary permissions for the inclusion of copyrighted materials, such as figures and tables from other publications. Previously published work will not be considered for publication. TheJournal will, however, accept manuscripts based on presentations made at conferences sponsored by the Journal, at the discretion of the Technical Editor-in-Chief.
Before a manuscript is published, the corresponding or primary author will be required to review and approve page proofs of the manuscript. (Authors will be contacted by e-mail when their proofs are available in PDF format for downloading and printing.) Authors are responsible for checking their proofs for accuracy and for clearly marking any corrections on the proofs. Please note that only major errors can be corrected at the page proof stage. The Journal team assumes no responsibility for data or text errors printed in the Journal if authors do not correct such errors on their proofs. Failure to return proofs promptly, as outlined in instructions provided with the proofs, may delay publication of the manuscript.
If a manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors must agree to reassign the copyright of that manuscript to the Journal (Note: this does not apply to government employees). This allows the Association to perform all standard supplementary functions of publishing inherent to information dissemination, including selling or redistributing reprints, granting to third parties permission for reproducing or reprinting articles, handling requests from abstracting and information centers, and publishing articles online. Note: It is the authors' responsibility to obtain all necessary permissions for the inclusion of copyrighted materials, such as figures and tables from other publications, prior to submitting a manuscript for consideration.
Page Charges and Reprints
Papers published in the Journal are subject to page charges. Payment must be received before manuscripts can be published. In lieu of hardcopy reprints, primary authors will receive a PDF copy of the published paper for limited distribution—rights and limitations will be conveyed along with PDF. Authors interested in hardcopy reprints in booklet format may order them using the form included on the standard page charge invoice (which is e-mailed with proof copies of the manuscript), or by calling the Journal's main office.