Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and scholarly impact of the SCICONX Journal of Cellular Immunology and Tissue Engineering (JCITE). Peer review at JCITE is not a fault-finding exercise but a structured scholarly evaluation aimed at improving research quality, clarity, and reproducibility while guiding editorial decision-making.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to contribute their subject-matter expertise, critical insight, and ethical judgment to support the advancement of interdisciplinary research at the intersection of immunology, tissue engineering, biomaterials, and regenerative medicine.

1. Scope Awareness and Review Suitability

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should assess whether:

• The manuscript aligns with their area of expertise
• They can complete the review within the requested timeframe
• No conflicts of interest exist that could compromise impartiality

If a manuscript falls partially outside the reviewer’s expertise, this should be transparently stated in the review comments.

2. Confidentiality and Responsible Handling

All manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must:

• Treat submitted work as privileged information
• Not share, discuss, or distribute manuscript content
• Not use unpublished data or ideas for personal research or advantage
• Confidentiality obligations extend beyond completion of the review.

3. Principles of Objective and Constructive Review

JCITE expects reviews to be:

• Objective: Based solely on scientific merit, not personal opinion
• Constructive: Focused on improving the manuscript
• Respectful: Free from derogatory or dismissive language
• Evidence-based: Supported by clear reasoning and, where appropriate, literature

Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. All feedback should address the work, not the individuals.

4. Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts across the following dimensions:

4.1 Originality and Contribution

• Does the study address a meaningful scientific or translational gap?
• Does it advance current understanding in cellular immunology or tissue engineering?

4.2 Methodological Rigor

• Are experimental designs, controls, and statistical analyses appropriate?
• Are materials, cell models, immune assays, or fabrication methods described in sufficient detail to enable reproducibility?

4.3 Data Integrity and Interpretation

• Are results presented clearly and logically?
• Do the data support the authors’ conclusions?
• Are alternative interpretations considered?

4.4 Integration and Interdisciplinarity

• Does the manuscript effectively integrate immunological principles with engineering approaches?
• Is the translational relevance articulated where applicable?

4.5 Clarity and Organization

• Is the manuscript well-structured and coherent?
• Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials appropriate and informative?

5. Ethical and Compliance Considerations

Reviewers should be attentive to:

• Ethical approval for human or animal studies
• Informed consent statements where applicable
• Appropriate handling of biosafety, genetically modified organisms, or clinical samples
• Potential plagiarism, redundant publication, or data manipulation

Any ethical concerns should be confidentially communicated to the editor via the review system.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, including:

• Collaborative or competitive relationships with the authors
• Financial or institutional affiliations
• Personal relationships that could affect objectivity

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or seek editorial guidance.

7. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports as follows:

7.1 Summary for Editors

A concise assessment of the manuscript’s overall quality, significance, and suitability for the journal.

7.2 Major Comments

Substantive issues affecting scientific validity, interpretation, or completeness.

7.3 Minor Comments

Suggestions related to clarity, organization, or minor methodological details.

Clear separation of major and minor issues helps authors respond effectively and assists editors in decision-making.

8. Recommendations to Editors

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Recommendations should be consistent with the detailed comments provided. Final decisions rest with the editorial team.

9. Timeliness and Professional Commitment

Reviewers are expected to:

• Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
• Notify the editor promptly if delays arise
• Decline invitations when unable to provide a thorough and timely review

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining an efficient and fair publication process.

10. Use of AI and External Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to public AI tools or external platforms. Limited use of private tools for grammar or reference checking is acceptable, provided confidentiality and data security are maintained.

Scientific judgment, interpretation, and recommendations must be the reviewer’s own.

11. Recognition and Contribution to the Journal

JCITE values the intellectual contribution of its reviewers. Active and high-quality reviewers may be:

• Considered for Editorial Board roles
• Acknowledged annually by the journal
• Invited to contribute editorials, reviews, or special issue content

12. Commitment to Scholarly Integrity

By serving as a reviewer for JCITE, individuals contribute to the integrity, advancement, and global impact of research in cellular immunology and tissue engineering. Reviewers are encouraged to approach each manuscript with fairness, curiosity, and a commitment to scientific excellence.