Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and expectations for peer reviewers at JDRR
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and significance to the field. Reviews should be constructive, identifying both strengths and weaknesses while providing specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate; focus on the science.
- Respond to review invitations within 48 hours
- Complete reviews within agreed timelines (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide thorough, balanced assessments of scientific quality
- Identify methodological concerns with specific recommendations
- Evaluate clarity, organization, and presentation
- Recommend appropriate editorial decisions with justification
Ethical Standards
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content. Sharing manuscripts with colleagues requires prior editorial approval. Reviewers should not use unpublished information for personal advantage or competitive purposes. Any conflict of interest should result in declining the review invitation.
Reviewers who suspect misconduct, plagiarism, or ethical violations should notify the handling editor confidentially. Do not contact authors directly regarding concerns about the manuscript.
Writing Effective Reviews
Effective reviews begin with a brief summary demonstrating understanding of the manuscript's goals and findings. Major concerns affecting publication suitability should be clearly distinguished from minor issues. Recommendations should be specific and constructive, explaining why changes would strengthen the work rather than simply stating preferences.
Balanced reviews acknowledge manuscript strengths while identifying areas requiring improvement. Constructive recommendations help authors develop their work and advance their contribution to the nucleic acid research literature through thoughtful, actionable feedback.
Conflict Management
Reviewers should decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist including recent collaboration with authors, competitive relationships, financial interests in research outcomes, or personal relationships that could influence objectivity. When potential conflicts are discovered after agreeing to review, notify the handling editor immediately. Honest self-assessment of conflict potential protects both review integrity and your professional reputation as a fair evaluator.
If you recognize authorship despite blinding measures, evaluate whether you can provide objective assessment. Decline if prior interactions could influence your evaluation or if the review would create uncomfortable future interactions with the authors.
Timeliness: Authors depend on timely reviews for career advancement and research dissemination. If you cannot complete a review within the requested timeframe, please decline promptly so alternative reviewers can be engaged.
