Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are essential to the quality of JNMB. These guidelines support fair, constructive, and timely peer review for molecular biology manuscripts.
What Reviewers Evaluate
Scientific rigor
Novelty and impact
Method transparency
Data integrity
Ethics compliance
Clear conclusions
Constructive Feedback
Provide clear, actionable comments on study design, methods, and interpretation. Highlight strengths and recommend improvements without bias.
Focus on whether conclusions are supported by the data and whether methods allow replication.
Organize feedback by major and minor points to help authors prioritize revisions.
Confidentiality
Treat submissions as confidential and avoid using unpublished information. Declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews when necessary.
Reviewer identities remain confidential to authors under the single blind model.
Do not share manuscript content or data outside the review process.
Ethics And Compliance
Check that studies report ethics approvals, consent statements, and biosafety compliance where applicable.
Flag potential image manipulation, data inconsistencies, or unreported conflicts of interest.
Contact the editorial office if serious ethical concerns arise.
Timelines
Respond promptly to review invitations and submit reports within the agreed timeframe.
Timely reviews help maintain fast decision cycles and benefit the research community.
If additional time is needed, notify the editorial office early.
Review Depth
Provide sufficient detail to support your recommendation. Reference specific figures, tables, or sections when pointing out issues.
Constructive detail helps editors make clear decisions and helps authors improve efficiently.
Focus on scientific content rather than stylistic preferences.
Reviewer Recognition
JNMB recognizes reviewer contributions through certificates and optional recognition programs. Review service can be documented on ORCID.
Consistent reviewers may be invited to special issues or editorial roles.
Recognition supports career development and professional service records.
Data Review
Reviewers should assess whether data are sufficient to support claims and whether datasets are accessible through stated repositories.
Request missing accession numbers or clarifications when needed.
Reporting Standards
Check adherence to reporting guidelines such as MIQE or ARRIVE where applicable. Reporting completeness improves reproducibility.
Editors rely on reviewer input to confirm standard compliance.
Join As A Reviewer
Register your expertise with the editorial office at [email protected].
Clarity In Feedback
Constructive reviews identify specific issues and suggest concrete improvements. Vague critiques slow revisions and frustrate authors.
Use clear language and reference manuscript sections to support your points.
Professional Tone
Maintain a respectful and professional tone even when recommending rejection. Constructive feedback strengthens the research community.
JNMB monitors review tone and may intervene if feedback is inappropriate.
