Reviewer Guidelines
Best practices for providing constructive peer review that advances stem cell research quality.
Excellence in Peer Review
ESCR reviewers ensure scientific validity and help authors improve regenerative medicine research through fair, constructive evaluation and actionable feedback.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to stem cell knowledge while providing constructive feedback.
Scientific Validity
Assess whether conclusions are supported by data, methods are appropriate, and claims are justified for stem cell research.
Significance
Evaluate whether findings advance regenerative medicine understanding or have potential therapeutic applications.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable suggestions helping authors improve stem cell manuscripts while maintaining respect.
- Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content and author identities
- Decline reviews involving conflicts of interest in stem cell research
- Provide objective assessment based on scientific merit
- Report suspected misconduct through appropriate channels
Timeline expectations: Complete reviews within 21 days of acceptance. If delays are anticipated, notify the editorial office promptly for stem cell manuscripts.
Effective reviews address major scientific issues, methodological concerns, and presentation clarity. Separate major from minor concerns. Conclude with clear recommendation and justification.
Access Review Resources
Find templates and guidance for preparing quality stem cell reviews.
View Resources
