The SCICONX Journal of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine (JSCRM) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded peer review system to ensure the publication of high-quality, credible, and reproducible scientific research. The journal believes that strong peer review is the foundation of responsible scientific communication and strives to uphold the highest standards of editorial integrity.

This page provides a detailed overview of the complete peer review workflow - from submission to final decision - so that authors, reviewers, and readers understand the processes that guide publication decisions in JSCRM.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Model

JSCRM adopts a double-blind peer review system, where:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

This model helps maintain fairness, eliminate bias, and encourage objective scientific evaluation.

For certain special issues or invited submissions, the journal may consider single-blind or open review, but only with full consent from all parties involved.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Screening)

Immediately after submission, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor.

This step includes:

✔ Scope Alignment

Assessing whether the manuscript fits within the aims and scope of JSCRM:

• Stem cell biology
• Tissue engineering
• Regenerative medicine
• Cellular reprogramming
• Translational and clinical stem cell research
• Biomaterials, scaffolds, and advanced therapeutics

✔ Basic Scientific Quality

Evaluating originality, conceptual strength, technical soundness, and clarity of writing.

✔ Ethical Compliance Check

Verification of:

• IRB/IACUC approvals
• Stem cell source documentation
• Patient consent for human materials
• Ethics statements for genetic manipulation studies

✔ Plagiarism Screening

Using professional plagiarism detection tools to ensure content originality. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards may receive a desk rejection with constructive guidance for improvement.

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to a Handling Editor with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.

The Handling Editor oversees:

• Reviewer selection
• Review coordination
• Communication with authors
• Decision recommendation

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

A minimum of two independent reviewers is invited. In some cases (e.g., conflicting reviews, highly technical manuscripts), a third reviewer may be added.

Reviewers are chosen based on:

• Subject expertise
• Research and publication record
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Previous review quality and timeliness

JSCRM encourages diversity in reviewer selection, including early-career researchers with proven competence.

5. Conduct of Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

✔ Scientific Rigor

Quality of methodology, experimental reproducibility, statistical robustness, and accuracy of interpretation.

✔ Novelty & Contribution

Whether the findings advance the field of stem cell science or regenerative medicine.

✔ Ethical & Safety Compliance

Reviewers verify that authors meet ethical guidelines for:

• Human stem cell usage
• Embryonic stem cell research
• Gene editing (CRISPR, TALEN)
• Animal experiments
• Human subject data

✔ Manuscript Structure & Clarity

Reviewers assess readability, logical flow, figure clarity, language quality, and completeness of references.

✔ Strengths & Weaknesses

Evaluations must be objective, constructive, and respectful.

✔ Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content.

6. Reviewer Reports & Recommendations

At the end of the review, each reviewer provides a recommendation:

• Accept as is
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
• Resubmit as a new manuscript

Reviewers’ detailed comments are provided to the authors, while recommendations remain confidential to the editors.

7. Editorial Decision Making

The Handling Editor evaluates:

• Reviewer comments
• Consistency of feedback
• Manuscript quality
• Ethical considerations
• Journal expectations and scientific standards

Possible editorial decisions:

✔ Accept

Manuscript is ready for publication (rare at initial submission).

✔ Minor Revision

Authors address small corrections before acceptance.

✔ Major Revision

Significant improvements are needed; manuscript may be re-reviewed.

✔ Reject with Options

Manuscript is unsuitable for publication but authors may rework and resubmit as a new submission.

✔ Reject

Manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific or ethical standards.

All decisions are communicated with courtesy, fairness, and clarity.

8. Revision & Resubmission Process

8.1 Author Revision

Authors must:

• Provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewers
• Highlight changes in the manuscript
• Justify respectfully any suggestions not incorporated

8.2 Second Review (If needed)

Revised manuscripts undergoing major revisions may be sent back to the same reviewers for reassessment.

8.3 Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial evaluation.

9. Post-Acceptance Quality Checks

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes:

• Technical formatting
• Figure resolution verification
• Ethical compliance final check
• Proofreading
• Author proof approval
• Typesetting and online publication

10. Appeals & Editorial Reconsideration

Authors may appeal a decision if they believe:

• Their manuscript was misunderstood
• Reviewer comments contained factual errors
• There was a procedural oversight

All appeals must include a reasoned and respectful explanation. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and at least one independent editorial member.

11. Peer Review Integrity & Ethics

JSCRM is committed to:

• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) principles
• Transparency in editorial workflow
• Avoiding bias in reviewer selection and decisions
• Ensuring confidentiality and research integrity at all stages

Any misconduct identified during or after peer review may lead to corrections, retractions, or ethical investigations.

12. Transparency & Commitment to Quality

JSCRM aims to:

• Promote fair, unbiased peer review
• Support authors with constructive feedback
• Encourage reviewers to uphold the highest ethical standards
• Improve global scientific communication in stem cell and regenerative medicine research