Journal of Evolving Stem Cell Research · ISSN 2574-4372 · Open Access Pub
Reviewer Guidelines
What the journal asks a reviewer to assess, how to report it, and the handling rules that apply to a manuscript you have been sent.
How review works here
The review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Before accepting an invitation, check that the manuscript is within your expertise and that you have no competing interest with the authors, their institution or the subject. Declining promptly helps more than a delayed review.
What to assess
The questions a review should answer
Does the evidence support the claim?
The central question. Identify each principal claim and say whether the data presented establish it, support it in part, or are consistent with it without establishing it.
Are the cells what the authors say they are?
Assess provenance, authentication, mycoplasma testing, passage and culture conditions, and the characterization offered for any claim about identity, potency or differentiated state.
Could another laboratory reconstruct this?
Judge the methods as written. Where a protocol, reagent, line or analysis step is missing, ask for it; reproducibility in this field depends on detail that is easy to omit.
Is the system's limit acknowledged?
A result obtained in one model system is a result in that system. Note where a conclusion is generalized beyond the model, the sample or the setting that produced it.
Is the analysis appropriate?
Assess the statistical approach, the level at which replicates were counted, and whether the reported effects are distinguishable from variation between preparations.
Are the ethical requirements met?
Check that approvals, consent, and where applicable trial registration and ISSCR compliance are reported. Raise any concern with the editor rather than deciding it yourself.
Is the reporting complete?
Check the data-availability statement, the declarations, the figures and legends, and any reporting checklist required by the study design.
Writing the report
A review the authors can act on
Useful to the editor and the authors
- Separate what is essential to the conclusion from what would improve the paper.
- Point to the figure, table or line that prompted each comment.
- Say what additional evidence would settle a question you are raising.
- State your confidence where your expertise covers only part of the work.
- Give the editor a clear recommendation and the reasoning behind it.
Matters of judgment
- Assess the work, not the authors, their institution or their country.
- Novelty is not a criterion here; a careful confirmatory or negative result with mechanistic insight is a contribution.
- Requests for additional experiments should be proportionate to the claim being made.
- A disagreement about interpretation is worth stating as such rather than as an error.
Handling rules
Confidentiality, files and AI
A manuscript sent for review is confidential. Do not share it or discuss its content outside the review process, and do not use unpublished material in your own work.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor, and clarity. A reviewer's own submissions are handled independently, on the same evidence as any other manuscript.
Reference
Pages a reviewer uses
Editorial Policies Aims and Scope Instructions for Authors Editors Guidelines