Peer Review Procedure
Peer-review is a critical part of the functioning of the scientific community, of quality control, and the self corrective nature of science. The MBRC is a quarterly and peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles of high quality and originality in all fields of Molecular Biology.
The authors should propose three candidates for referees (indicating their full names, affiliations, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses), but the final choice is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
The manuscript submission and peer review process consists of the following steps:
1. The corresponding author (or someone on his/her behalf) submits a manuscript. Editorial staff assumes the order of authors you choose is correct.
2. Each manuscript is subjected to a two-tiered review system.
a) If the editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.
b) If the manuscript is, in principle, acceptable for publication in MBRC, editor-in-chief assigns at least two potential Reviewers who are experts in the field.
3. The peer-review process is single blinded, i.e., the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.
4. The reviewers accept or decline to review the manuscript.
5. Once reviewers are secured, they are asked to submit their reviews to the editor-in-chief within two weeks. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the editor-in-chief:
- Accepted for publication
- Consider after Minor Changes
- Consider after Major Changes
- Rejected: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel
6. The editor-in-chief makes a decision based on the reviewer comments. In the case of conflicting reviews, he may seek a third review.
7. The staff contacts the author with the decision. An editorial decision based on reviews will generally be provided to the author within 6 weeks after submission.
8. MBRC will consider revised versions of manuscripts judged by reviewers to be of substantial merit. Manuscripts that are judged to be lacking essential experiments or data or that require extensive alteration for other reasons will be returned to the corresponding author. A point-by-point reconciliation with the reviewer comments will be required. Revised manuscripts will be examined by the editor-in-chief and may be re-reviewed.
Guidelines to be followed while reviewing the articles are:
“Molecular Biology Research Communications”applies single-blind peer review, which means that reviewers remain anonymous by default. Reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors, at any stage of the publication of the manuscript.
Reviewers of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Reviewers should review the manuscript within the provided timeline in order to facilitate timely completion of the review process. If a reviewer believes it is not possible for him/her to review the research reported in a manuscript within the designated guidelines, or within stipulated time, he/she should notify the editor, so that the accurate and timely review can be ensured.
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
Reviewers should not be biased or partial while reviewing the manuscript.
Reviewers should provide constructive comments to improve the quality of the article.
Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should directly contact the editor/editorial office, if there is any problem in the manuscript content/figures/tables/experimental data.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship nor political values of the authors.
Reviewers should directly inform the editor, if the manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal or there is no quality content in the manuscript.
Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewers. They can approach the assigned editor/editorial office, if the manuscript is beyond their expertise.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewer reviews his/her assigned article and judges it according to four categories: publish as is, publish with minor revisions, publish with major revisions, and reject.
Reviewers have to remember that the final decision to accept or reject will depend on the comments from the Editor-in-Chief.
Conflict of Interests:
We ask our referees to refuse review of a manuscript if they feel there is a conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) that might prevent an impartial and object review. A conflict of interest could arise under a number of circumstances and is difficult to define clearly. We would generally ask you to refuse if you;
- have financial interest in the outcome of the research
- are competing to publish similar findings
- have past disputes with any of the manuscript authors
- have any other competing reasons