Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and significance to genetic engineering. Reviews should be constructive, identifying both strengths and weaknesses while providing specific, actionable suggestions for improvement.

• 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

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content. Any conflict of interest should result in declining the review invitation. Reviewers should not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Report suspected misconduct or ethical violations to the handling editor confidentially.

Effective reviews begin with a brief summary demonstrating understanding of the manuscripts goals. Major concerns should be clearly distinguished from minor issues. Recommendations should be specific and constructive, explaining why changes would strengthen the work. Consider both what the manuscript achieves and how it could be improved.

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.

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.

Balanced reviews acknowledge manuscript strengths while identifying areas requiring improvement. Constructive recommendations help authors develop their work and advance their contribution to genetic engineering research. Consider both what the manuscript achieves and how it could be improved, balancing recognition of merit with identification of limitations.

Your thoughtful evaluation advances both individual manuscripts and the broader genetic engineering literature. We appreciate the expertise and time you contribute to maintaining publication quality standards.