Editors Guidelines
These guidelines support JNMB editors in delivering fair, rigorous, and timely peer review for molecular biology manuscripts.
Key Responsibilities
Initial scope screening
Reviewer selection
Decision letters
Ethics checks
Conflict management
Timely communication
Reviewer Selection
Choose reviewers with subject expertise in the manuscript area and ensure diversity across institutions and regions. Avoid conflicts of interest and confirm availability.
Consider balanced reviewer panels that include methodological and domain specific expertise.
JNMB encourages selecting reviewers who understand emerging techniques such as single cell omics and genome engineering.
Decision Standards
Decisions should be based on scientific rigor, data quality, and novelty. Provide constructive guidance and clear rationale for revisions.
Editors should encourage transparent reporting and data availability to strengthen reproducibility.
Decision letters should prioritize the most critical revisions to guide authors effectively.
Ethics Oversight
Check approvals for human, animal, and biosafety related research. Ensure conflicts of interest are disclosed and potential ethical risks are addressed.
Escalate suspected misconduct to the editorial office promptly for investigation.
Editors should verify that gene editing studies report containment and risk mitigation measures.
Timeliness
Maintain efficient timelines by inviting reviewers promptly and following up when reviews are overdue. Timely decisions benefit authors and readers.
JNMB provides editorial support tools and templates to streamline decisions.
Editors should communicate delays to authors when review timelines shift.
Quality Assurance
Check that manuscripts include complete methods, appropriate controls, and sufficient data to support conclusions.
When needed, request additional validation experiments or data deposition before acceptance.
Editors should verify that conclusions align with the presented data.
Communication
Maintain professional communication with reviewers and authors. Clear guidance supports constructive revisions and reinforces journal standards.
Editors should document key decisions to support transparency.
Consistent communication helps reduce author confusion and delays.
Handling Disputes
When authors dispute reviewer comments, assess the scientific rationale and determine whether additional review is warranted.
Escalate complex disputes to senior editors or the editorial office for resolution.
Mentoring Reviewers
Editors can provide feedback to reviewers to improve review quality. Constructive feedback strengthens the reviewer pool over time.
Encourage reviewers to provide actionable, evidence based critiques.
Join The Editorial Board
Interested in serving as an editor? Email [email protected] with your CV and research areas.
Managing Reviews
Editors should monitor reviewer progress and send reminders when needed. Timely reviews improve author experience and reduce backlog.
If a reviewer is unresponsive, editors should invite an alternative to avoid delays.
Decision Consistency
Apply consistent standards across submissions to maintain fairness. Use journal policies and reporting checklists to support decisions.
Consistency improves author trust and strengthens journal reputation.
