The SCICONX Journal of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine (JSCRM) relies on the expertise, integrity, and professional judgment of its reviewers to maintain the scientific excellence of the journal. Reviewers play a central role in evaluating the validity, clarity, and novelty of submitted manuscripts, ensuring that only high-quality research is shared with the global scientific community.

This document outlines reviewer responsibilities, evaluation criteria, ethical obligations, communication standards, and procedural steps for reviewing manuscripts submitted to JSCRM.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely assessments of manuscripts.
• Evaluate scientific rigor, methodological accuracy, and originality.
• Identify strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements.
• Uphold the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.
• Notify the editorial office of any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns.
• Support the journal’s mission of advancing progress in stem cell science and regenerative medicine.

2. Reviewer Selection & Invitation

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise
• Research experience and publication record
• Familiarity with stem cell biology, tissue engineering, bio-materials, gene therapy, cellular reprogramming, and other relevant fields
• Ability to provide objective and high-quality evaluations

Upon receiving an invitation, reviewers should:

• Accept if the manuscript aligns with their expertise and they can meet the deadline.
• Decline if the topic is outside their scope, if they have a conflict of interest, or if they cannot provide a timely review.
• Suggest alternative reviewers when declining, if possible.

3. Confidentiality Requirements

Reviewers must:

• Treat all manuscripts and related data as strictly confidential.
• Not share or discuss the manuscript with colleagues without explicit editor permission.
• Not use any data, images, or ideas from the manuscript for personal research.
• Delete or securely dispose of manuscript files after completing the review.

Unauthorized use or sharing of manuscript content is considered a serious ethical violation.

4. Review Structure & Evaluation Criteria

A high-quality review should include the following components:

4.1 Summary of the Manuscript

Provide a brief overview in your own words highlighting:

• Study purpose
• Methodology
• Key findings
• Relevance to the field

This helps editors ensure the reviewer has understood the manuscript accurately.

4.2 Major Comments

Focus on critical scientific and methodological aspects, such as:

• Originality and novelty of research
• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology
• Quality and reproducibility of experimental design
• Validity of data interpretation
• Strength of conclusions
• Ethical compliance (stem cell sources, human subjects, animal models, informed consent)
• Adequacy of statistical analyses
• Identified errors, inconsistencies, or missing data

Major comments should be clearly numbered and constructive.

4.3 Minor Comments

Provide feedback on:

• Clarity of writing
• Grammar and syntax
• Figure quality and labelling
• Terminology usage
• Reference formatting
• Minor inconsistencies

Minor comments should be brief and organized.

4.4 Recommendation to the Editor

At the end of the review, provide one of the following recommendations (visible to editors only):

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject
• Re-submit after extensive revision

Reviewers must justify the recommendation logically based on manuscript quality - not on personal preference or bias.

5. Ethical Responsibilities

5.1 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if they:

• Have worked with the authors in the last 3 years
• Are from the same institution as the authors
• Have personal, professional, or financial relationships that may influence judgment
• Are collaborating on related projects

Reviewers must inform the editor immediately if an unexpected conflict arises.

5.2 Ethical Concerns in Submitted Research

If reviewers identify ethical issues, such as:

• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Unethical use of stem cell lines
• Lack of IRB/IEC approval
• Patient consent violations
• Concerns about animal welfare

They should confidentially notify the editor through the review system.

6. Tone & Professionalism

Reviewer comments should be:

• Respectful
• Objective
• Constructive
• Focused on science rather than the author

Avoid biased language, personal criticism, or demeaning remarks. The goal is to improve scientific clarity - not discourage authors.

7. Timeliness

Reviewers are generally expected to complete reviews within:

• 14 - 21 days for original research
• 10 - 14 days for review articles and short communications

If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editor promptly. Failure to submit timely reviews may affect future reviewer invitations.

8. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When authors submit a revised manuscript:

• Ensure all reviewer comments have been addressed thoroughly and accurately.
• Compare revised sections with original content when necessary.
• Evaluate whether new data or explanations sufficiently resolve concerns.
• Highlight remaining issues, if any.

A second review is usually faster and focused on areas previously addressed.

9. Recognition & Reviewer Benefits

JSCRM acknowledges the invaluable contributions of reviewers through:

• Annual reviewer appreciation certificates
• Eligibility for Editorial Board consideration
• Listing in the journal’s annual acknowledgment roster
• Priority consideration for future editorial roles within SCICONX
• Opportunities to review high-impact articles in emerging fields

Reviewers who consistently provide high-quality and timely reviews are identified as “Distinguished Reviewers.”

10. Reviewer Support

For technical issues, questions about the manuscript, or guidance on ethical concerns, reviewers can reach out to:

Editorial Office, JSCRM
Email : editorialoffice@sciconx.org
WhatsApp : +44 1528 360034

The editorial team ensures reviewers have the support needed to deliver high-quality evaluations.