The SCICONX Journal of Cellular Immunology and Tissue Engineering (JCITE) upholds stringent, transparent, and scholarly peer review to ensure that published research represents the highest standards of scientific integrity, relevance, and impact. This page outlines how manuscripts are assessed from submission through final decision - with the aim of fairness, timeliness, and constructive evaluation.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review at JCITE serves as a scholarly quality assurance mechanism. Its purpose is to:

• Validate the novelty, originality, and scientific rigor of submitted work
• Improve clarity, reproducibility, and methodological transparency
• Enhance interdisciplinary communication between immunology and bioengineering communities
• Guard against ethical concerns such as data misrepresentation, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest

Every manuscript undergoes assessment against these benchmarks before being accepted for publication.

2. Overview of the Peer Review Workflow

JCITE follows a structured, multi-stage review process:

1. Initial Submission
2. Editorial Triage (Desk Review)
3. Peer Review Assignment
4. External Review
5. Editorial Evaluation
6. Decision Notification
7. Revision and Resubmission (if needed)
8. Final Decision and Publication

3. Initial Submission and Verification

Upon manuscript submission:

• Authors must complete required fields including abstract, keywords, author contributions, funding information, and ethics statements.
• The submission is checked for compliance with journal format and basic scholarly standards.
• Manuscripts lacking essential components (figures, data availability statements, ethical approval details) may be returned to authors before review.

4. Editorial Triage (Desk Review)

The Editor-in-Chief and assigned Associate Editor undertake an initial assessment to determine:

• Scope alignment: Does the manuscript fit within cellular immunology, biomaterials, tissue engineering, or translational immuno-engineering?
• Scientific significance: Does the research pose important questions or innovations?
• Baseline rigor and clarity: Is the text coherent, well-structured, and ready for review?

Manuscripts failing this stage may receive a desk rejection, with constructive feedback to guide future submissions.

5. Assignment to Expert Reviewers

For manuscripts progressing past initial screening:

• Each paper is assigned to at least two independent reviewers selected for subject-specific expertise (e.g., immune-engineering, scaffold design, biomaterial immunomodulation).
• Reviewers are chosen to ensure diversity of perspective, geographic representation, and absence of conflicts of interest.
• Review invitations include an abstract and expected timeline (typically 2-3 weeks).

6. External Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript across key dimensions:

• Scientific validity and rigor
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Experimental design, methods, and reproducibility
• Ethical compliance, including human or animal research approval
• Clarity, logic, and integration with current literature

Their reports contain:

• A confidential summary for editors
• Major and minor comments for authors
• A recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)

All reviews prioritize constructive feedback and aim to improve the manuscript.

7. Editorial Evaluation and Decision

After reviewer reports are submitted:

• The handling editor synthesizes assessments.
• Reports are evaluated for consistency, fairness, and evidence-based reasoning.
• The editor may request additional reviews if needed.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept: Outstanding quality with negligible revision needed.
• Minor Revision: Revisions needed but scientific conclusions remain sound.
• Major Revision: Substantial improvement required before a final decision.
• Reject: Not suitable for publication due to conceptual or methodological issues.

Decisions communicate clear rationales and, where applicable, steps authors should take when revising.

8. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested:

• Authors respond to each reviewer comment with a point-by-point response document.
• Revised manuscripts must clearly indicate changes (e.g., using tracked changes, annotated summaries, or highlighted text).
• Editors review revised submissions, and may return them to reviewers for final assessment.

JCITE encourages collaborative dialogue between authors and reviewers to strengthen submitted research.

9. Final Decision and Publication

Once revisions satisfactorily address reviewer concerns:

• The manuscript enters production - including editorial formatting, proofing, and metadata verification.
• Accepted papers are published online and linked to indexing services.

JCITE may also highlight particularly innovative articles through editorials, commentaries, or social dissemination.

10. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

JCITE’s peer review process is governed by the following principles:

Confidentiality:

• Manuscripts and reviewer assessments remain confidential.
• Reviewers may not share or externalize unpublished data.

Conflict of Interest:

• Reviewers and editors must disclose personal, financial, or competitive conflicts.
• Manuscripts with possible conflicts are reassigned.

Fairness and Objectivity:

• Reviews focus on science - not author identity, institution, or geography.
• Discriminatory or unprofessional language is prohibited.

Data Integrity:

• Reviewers are encouraged to flag concerns about data fabrication, duplication, or image manipulation.
• Suspected ethical breaches are confidentially escalated to the editorial office.

11. Transparency and Accountability

JCITE believes in transparent peer review:

• Reviewers may optionally sign their reviews.
• Summaries of peer review history may accompany published articles at the authors’ consent.
• Anonymous reviewer comments are kept secure and inaccessible outside the editorial system.

12. Continuous Improvement

JCITE periodically reviews its peer review standards in light of disciplinary advances, ethical guidelines, and reviewer feedback. Updates to this policy are posted publicly to ensure accountability and clarity.

So, Finally, The JCITE peer review process is designed to:

• Deliver fair, expert evaluation
• Enhance research quality and reproducibility
• Support authors with constructive scholarly guidance
• Uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity