Acta Biochimica et
Biophysica Sinica is a scientific journal publishing monthly
research papers and reviews in biochemistry, molecular biology,
biophysics and cell biology. Research papers should report
original work not published or considered for publication
elsewhere. Reviews should provide a concise introduction to the
subject matter to inform the readers of the latest developments
in a certain area. The acceptance criteria for a manuscript are
the quality and originality of the research and its significance
to our readership.
Criteria for publication:
-
Novelty
-
Broad biological significance
-
Importance to the specific field
-
Strong evidence for the conclusions that
are drawn
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the
editorial staff for suitability for the review process. The
abstract or a PDF file of manuscripts may be sent to Advisory
Editorial Board members for further input toward this decision.
To save authors and reviewers' time, only those manuscripts
judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent out
for formal review.
Manuscripts that are sent for formal review
typically go to three reviewers. Based on their advice, the
editor decides to:
-
Accept the manuscript, with or without
minor revision;
-
Invite the authors to revise the
manuscript to address specific concerns before a final
decision is reached
-
Reject the manuscript, typically on
grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty,
insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or
interpretational problems.
Reviewers may recommend a particular course
of action in their confidential comments to the editor, but
should bear in mind that the editors may have to make a decision
based on conflicting advice. Furthermore, editorial decisions
are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank
assessments, but rather are based on an evaluation of the
strengths of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the
authors. The most useful reviewer's reports, therefore, are
those that set out clear, substantiated arguments and refrain
from recommending a course of action in the comments directed to
the authors.
Selecting reviewers
Reviewer selection is critical to the review
process, and our choice is based on many factors, including
expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our
previous experience with the reviewer. We avoid using reviewers
who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or too lenient. We
normally send manuscripts to reviewers only after having
contacted them about the possibility first, and expect reviewers
to treat even this initial request as confidential.
Upon receiving a manuscript to reviewers
To avoid unnecessary delays in processing
manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of
a manuscript for review:
-
Check the quality of the PDF-file on the
system
-
Double-check the deadline to ensure that
there have been no misunderstandings regarding timing
-
Contact the editorial office immediately
if you anticipate any difficulties
-
Consider whether there might be a
conflict of interest for you (with the authors, their
institution, their funding sources) and whether you can
judge the article impartially
-
Read the editor's letter carefully and be
sure to note any points specific to the manuscript that the
editor may have requested your opinion on
Confidentiality
Reviewers should treat the review process as
being strictly confidential, and should keep the following
guidelines in mind:
-
Manuscripts should not be discussed with
anyone not directly involved in the review process
-
Reviewers should check with the editors
beforehand to avoid involving anyone who may have been
excluded by the editor
-
Reviewers should, as a rule, not disclose
their identities to the authors
Writing the report
The primary purpose of reviewer's reports is
to provide the editors with the information that they need to
reach a decision, but they should also instruct the authors on
how to strengthen their manuscript if revision is a possibility.
Reviewers should submit confidential comments to the editor,
they should also provide a summary that can be directly
transmitted to the authors. Reviewers are asked to maintain a
positive and impartial, but critical, attitude in evaluating
manuscripts. Criticisms should remain dispassionate; offensive
language is not acceptable. As far as possible, a negative
report should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their
manuscript, so that they can understand the basis for a decision
to ask for revision or to reject the manuscript.
The ideal report should include:
An initial paragraph that summarizes the
major findings and the reviewer's overall impressions, as well
as highlighting major shortcomings of the manuscript. specific
numbered comments, which may be broken down into major and minor
criticisms if appropriate (numbering facilitates both the
editor's evaluation of the manuscript and the authors' rebuttal
to the report).
The report should answer the following
questions:
-
What are the major claims and how
significant are they?
-
Are the claims novel and convincing?
-
Are the claims appropriately discussed in
the context of earlier literature?
-
Is the study of interest to more than a
specialized audience?
-
Does the paper stand out in some way from
the others in its field?
-
Are there other experiments that would
strengthen the paper?
For manuscripts that may merit further
consideration, it is also helpful if reviewers can provide
advice on the following points where appropriate:
-
How the clarity of the writing might be
improved (without necessarily going into specific details of
spelling and grammar)
-
How the manuscript might be shortened
-
How to do the study justice without
overselling the claims
-
How to represent earlier literature more
fairly
-
How to improve the presentation of
methodological detail so that the experiments can be
reproduced
-
This author report should not include a
recommendation regarding publication, which is regarded as
confidential information since the final decision regarding
acceptance, revision or rejection rests with the editor
Timing
ABBS is committed to rapid editorial
decisions and publication as efficiency in this process is a
valuable service both to our authors and the scientific
community as a whole. We therefore ask that reviewers respond
promptly or inform us if they anticipate a significant delay,
which allows us to keep the authors informed and, where
necessary, find alternative reviewers.
Conflicts of interest
Where authors have asked us to exclude
reviewers and their reasons seems to justify this, we usually
comply with their request. We also try to avoid reviewers who:
have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have
commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct
competition, have a history of dispute with the authors, or have
a financial interest in the outcome. Because it is not possible
for the editors to know of all possible biases, however, we ask
reviewers to draw our attention to anything that might affect
their report, including commercial interests, and to decline to
review in cases where they feel unable to be objective. We do
not find it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed a
paper for another journal; the fact that two journals have
independently identified a particular person as well qualified
to review a paper does not decrease the validity of her/his
opinion in our view.
Publication policy and ethical
considerations
In spite of our best efforts to identify
breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct, such as
plagiarism or author conflict of interest, the reviewers who are
more familiar with the field are more likely to recognize such
problems and should alert the editors to any potential problems
in this regard.
Feedback to reviewers
When we ask reviewers to re-review a
manuscript that has been revised in response to their
criticisms, we normally send them copies of the other reviewers'
comments. Upon request, we inform reviewers of our decisions and
send copies of the other reviewers' reports. Reviewers who find
that their recommendations have been overruled should realize
that this does not imply any lack of confidence in their
judgment. It is not uncommon for experts to disagree and, in the
absence of a consensus, the editors must still reach a decision
one way or the other. |