Journal of Molecular Science

Reviewers Guidelines

审稿人指南 我们的审稿人在维护已发表研究的质量、完整性和可信度方面起着至关重要的作用。 同行评审过程确保只有高质量、经过充分研究且符合伦理标准的文章被发表。 作为审稿人，您的见解和专业知识帮助作者完善他们的作品，同时维护期刊的出版标准。
审稿人的一般职责
保密性——评审者必须将所有稿件视为机密，不得分享、讨论或出于个人或职业利益使用稿件的任何部分。
客观性与公正性——评审应公平进行，不带偏见或个人批评。 反馈应具有建设性，帮助作者改进他们的作品。
及时审稿——审稿人应在规定的截止日期内完成审稿，以避免出版过程中的不必要延误。 如果审稿人无法在截止日期前完成审稿，他们应尽快通知编辑部。
利益冲突 – 如果审稿人有任何利益冲突（例如，与作者或其机构的个人、财务或专业关系），他们必须拒绝审稿并通知编辑团队。
伦理问题——如果审稿人发现抄袭、重复提交、数据造假或其他伦理违规行为，他们应立即向期刊的编辑团队报告。
审查流程与标准
审稿人应根据以下关键方面评估稿件：
原创性和重要性——这项研究是否在分子科学领域提供了新的见解或进展？ 它是否相关且有影响力？
科学严谨性与方法论 上下文：科学严谨性与方法论——研究方法是否设计良好、适当且可重复？
文本翻译：– 研究方法设计得是否合理、适当且可重复？ 结果是否有效且可靠？
清晰度与组织 – 手稿是否结构良好、清晰且逻辑严谨？ 它是否遵循期刊的格式指南？
数据完整性与伦理合规 – 是否存在关于抄袭、人类/动物研究的伦理批准或数据操纵的任何担忧？
参考文献与引用 – 所有相关研究是否都已正确引用？ 手稿是否包含足够的参考文献来支持其论点？
审稿人应当：
要具体——突出需要改进的领域并提供明确的建议。
保持专业——使用尊重的语言，避免严厉的批评。
要全面 – 既要指出手稿的优点，也要指出其缺点。
审阅后，审稿人将被要求推荐以下决定之一：
接受原样 – 手稿已准备好出版，无需重大修改。
小修订——手稿在接受之前需要进行小的修改。
重大修订——需要进行重大改进，修订后应重新评估稿件。
拒绝——该手稿不符合期刊的出版标准。

Our reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. The peer-review process ensures that only high-quality, well-researched, and ethically sound articles are published. As a reviewer, your insights and expertise help authors refine their work while upholding the journal’s publishing standards.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. – Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and should not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
2. Objectivity & Fairness – Reviews should be conducted fairly, without bias, or personal criticism. Feedback should be constructive, helping authors improve their work.
3. Timely Review – Reviewers should complete their reviews within the given deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publishing process. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
4. Conflict of Interest – If a reviewer has any conflict of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional connections with the authors or their institutions), they must decline the review and inform the editorial team.
5. Ethical Concerns – If a reviewer identifies plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical violations, they should report it immediately to the journal’s editorial team.

Review Process & Criteria
1. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following key aspects:
2. Originality & Significance – Does the research present new insights or advancements in molecular sciences? Is it relevant and impactful?
3. Scientific Rigor & Methodology – Are the research methods well-designed, appropriate, and reproducible? Are the results valid and reliable?
4. Clarity & Organization – Is the manuscript well-structured, clear, and logically written? Does it follow the journal’s formatting guidelines?
5. Data Integrity & Ethical Compliance – Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, ethical approval for human/animal research, or data manipulation?
6. References & Citations – Are all relevant studies properly cited? Does the manuscript include sufficient references to support its claims?

Reviewers are expected to:
• Be specific –x Highlight areas that need improvement and provide clear suggestions.
• Be professional – Use respectful language and avoid harsh criticism.
• Be thorough – Address both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
After reviewing, reviewers will be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
• Accept as is – The manuscript is ready for publication with no major changes.
• Minor revisions – The manuscript requires small corrections before acceptance.
• Major revisions – Significant improvements are needed, and the manuscript should be re-evaluated after revisions.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.