Reviewer Guidelines Journal of Peptides

Peptide science is one discipline with several kinds of contribution, and they are not interchangeable. A synthesis method, a structural determination, an analytical technique, a computational model, a bioactivity study and a review each answer to their own standards.

Assess the evidence against the claims the manuscript actually makes. A synthetic route is supported by its characterization; a structural assignment by the measurements that determine it; a mechanistic account by the experiments that discriminate it; an efficacy or safety claim by the evidence such a claim requires; a computational result by validation appropriate to its method.

Do not require a chemical, structural, mechanistic, clinical, novelty or experimental result that the manuscript's own claims do not call for. If a claim overreaches the evidence, the useful recommendation is usually to narrow the claim rather than to demand a different study.

Accept an invitation when the manuscript falls within your expertise and you can report within the time agreed. Decline where you have a competing interest — a collaboration, a shared institution, a financial interest, or any relationship that would make an independent judgment difficult — and say so, so the editor can reassign it.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.

• The question. Is it stated clearly, and is the manuscript's account of what is already known accurate?
• The molecule. Is the peptide identified unambiguously — sequence, modifications, purity and the evidence establishing identity?
• The methods. Is there enough detail to repeat the work, including conditions, controls and replication?
• The results. Do the data shown support what the text says about them? Are statistics, where used, appropriate and reported?
• The interpretation. Is the conclusion the only one the data permit, and are limitations acknowledged?
• The reporting. Are figures, legends, tables and supplementary material consistent with each other and with the text?
• Integrity. Any sign of undisclosed overlap with other work, image or data irregularity, or missing ethical approval.

Open with a short statement of what the manuscript does and what you take its main contribution to be, so the editor can see how you have read it. Then give numbered points, each tied to a specific location in the manuscript, and separate what must be addressed from what would improve the paper.

Address the work, not the authors. Where you recommend rejection, give the reason plainly enough that the authors can use it. Send confidential remarks to the editor in the field provided for them rather than in the body of the report.

The journal asks for no score and applies no rubric; the reasoning is what the editor needs. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions.