Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for peer review in enzyme research publication.
Excellence in Scientific Evaluation
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining JEN publication quality. These guidelines ensure consistent, constructive reviews advancing enzyme science.
Scientific Validity
Assess methodology, data presentation, and interpretation accuracy in enzyme studies.
Significance
Evaluate contribution to enzyme knowledge and advancement beyond existing literature.
Originality
Assess novelty of findings and their importance to enzymology.
Provide specific, actionable comments helping authors improve. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses. Frame feedback professionally.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share content. Report conflicts of interest promptly.
Complete reviews within agreed timeframes, typically 2-3 weeks. Notify editorial office of delays promptly.
- Accept: Ready for publication with minor corrections
- Minor Revision: Small improvements, no re-review required
- Major Revision: Substantial changes, re-review warranted
- Reject: Fundamental issues preventing publication
Report suspected misconduct. Decline invitations when conflicts exist. Provide unbiased evaluation based solely on scientific merit.
Evaluate kinetic parameters for appropriate experimental design. Check substrate concentration ranges, enzyme stability considerations, and proper controls. Verify that reported parameters are supported by presented data.
For manuscripts including structural data, assess data quality, resolution, and interpretation accuracy. Verify deposited structures match published figures and conclusions.
When reviewing revised manuscripts, focus on whether authors adequately addressed previous concerns. Evaluate response quality and check that requested changes were implemented appropriately.
Organize reviews with numbered comments for easy author reference. Separate major concerns from minor suggestions. Provide clear rationale for each recommendation made in your assessment.
