Journal Manager Demo for Scholarly Journals
Peer Review Process
How Your Manuscript Is Assessed
Double-anonymised review by independent experts, with published timelines and a route of appeal.
Our Model
Every submission is reviewed double-anonymised: reviewers do not see author identities, and authors do not see reviewer identities. At least two independent reviewers assess each manuscript, and the handling editor makes the decision. Editors do not handle submissions from their own institution or from recent collaborators.
From Submission to Decision
Screening
Scope, formatting, similarity and data-availability checks. Desk rejections carry reasons.
Reviewer invitation
Two or more experts, selected for method as well as subject.
Reports and decision
The handling editor weighs the reports; a split is resolved by a third reviewer.
Revision
21 days for minor, 60 for major. Extensions are granted on request.
What Reviewers Assess
- Whether the question is clearly posed and worth answering
- Whether the methods can support the conclusions drawn
- Whether statistics and sample size are appropriate and reported
- Whether data and code are available for independent verification
- Whether the literature is fairly represented
- Whether the writing is clear enough for the intended reader
- Whether the limitations are stated rather than left for the reader to find
- Whether the figures show the data and not only a summary of it
Decisions
- Accept — no further changes required.
- Minor revision — accepted in principle; changes usually assessed by the editor alone.
- Major revision — substantive work needed; normally returned to the original reviewers.
- Reject — with reasons. Where the work may suit a revised submission, the editor will say so.
Responding to Reviewers
Return a point-by-point response alongside the revised manuscript, quoting each comment and stating what changed and where. You may disagree; say so plainly and give the reason. A well-argued rebuttal carries as much weight with the editor as a change made.
Appeals
If you believe a decision rests on a factual error or a misunderstanding, write to the editorial office setting out the specific points. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Dissatisfaction with the outcome alone is not grounds for appeal.
Interested in reviewing?
We are expanding our reviewer pool in cancer genomics, computational biology and clinical oncology.