1. Peer review policy
Discovery Medicine adopts double-blind peer review. Reviewers should judge the manuscript objectively and respect the intellectual independence of authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments in a clear way that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.
Before accepting to review a manuscript:
• Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is within their area of expertise.
• Reviewers should confirm that they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
• Reviewers are welcome to provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
During the review process:
• Reviewers should inform the editors of any related interests and recuse themselves from the peer-review process
in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
For details, please refer to ICMJE.
• Reviewers can make a request to extend the deadline if more time is needed to compose a critique.
We ask reviewers the following types of questions to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
• Does the abstract convey the major theme of the paper?
• Does the introduction describe the rationale for the study in the context of the available literature?
• Does the article comprehensively and critically evaluate an existing problem in the context of the available literature?
• Where relevant, have appropriate ethics approval and informed consent been obtained?
• Are the methods adequately described?
• Is the number of samples, number of repeats, equipment and chemicals used clearly mentioned?
• Is the catalogue number of antibodies mentioned?
• Are statistical methods clearly stated?
• Is the discussion well-balanced in light of the available literature and the research findings?
• Are any conflicts of interest stated?
• Experiments including patient or animal data should properly be documented. Most journals require ethical approval by the author’s host organization. For more information about Editorial Policies.
• Does the manuscript require language editing?
We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
• Accept in current form
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject: (1) Flawed methods and results; (2) Insufficient explanation of the results; (3) Low academic value; (4) Other reasons.
However, it is important to note that the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, or another editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Reviewers’ Benefits
In Discovery Medicine, we value the hard work and dedication of our reviewers, and thus we are very pleased to offer you the following benefits every time you review:
• Personalized reviewer certificate.
• Extending your expertise in the field and expanding your knowledge.
• Building your reputation and increasing your exposure to key figures in the field.
• Keeping up with the latest literature and getting access to research results.
• Reinforcing critical thinking skills essential to research during the review process.
• An advance in your career—reviewer is an essential role for every researcher.
Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.
Respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others, based on COPE guideline.
4. Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:
• Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
• Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author
• Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author
• Have a close personal connection to any author
• Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
• Feel unable to be objective
Reviewers are encouraged to comment on authors’ declared conflicts of interest. If there are concerns that authors have not fully disclosed financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests, this should be raised in the reviewer report.
Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
5. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
• Reviewers should comply with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
• Reviewers should determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicate ways to improve it; and recommend acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems best.
• Reviewers should provide advices to editor, but the final decision on an article is made by the editor.
• Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation, in a timely manner, on the scientific content of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should point out relevant published work which seems necessary to improve the quality of publication and is not yet cited in the manuscripts.
• Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the complete review process.
• Reviewers should avoid personal comments or criticism. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it.
• Reviewers should notify the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest.
• Reviewers should notify the editors of the journal of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between a previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.
6. Online Review
You can access the review system by clicking on "Online Review".
Updated on 10 January 2023