New Cell MetabolismReviewer Guidelines
1.Brief overview of the review process at Cell Metabolism
As we all know, peer review is essential for maintaining the rigor and high quality of published scientific papers, and we are grateful to the care and dedication that our reviewers put in their reviews. In order to improve the three-way communication betweenauthors, reviewers, and editors, we would like to help focus reviewer feedbackto more clearly defineexperimental and conceptual criteria for publication at Cell Metabolism. We hopethat both our authors and reviewerswill benefit from a more streamlined review process.
As usual, the editors at Cell Metabolism will be conducting an initial screen of papers, sometimes after getting advice from experts in the field. We typically ask 2–3 reviewers, with overlapping or differing expertise (depending on the scope of the paper), to review a manuscript. Please let us know if you have any potential conflict of interest and please return your review within the 10-day turnaround time in order to minimize delays. The editorial team will integrateall the reviewers’ reports and our ownassessment in making the editorial decision.We generally only consider one revised version of amanuscript, which we endeavor to have re-reviewedby the same reviewers.
Further general information for reviewers, including details of Editorial Manager, can be found at
2. Specific guidelines to new reviewer form
We would like to ask you, as our reviewers,to assess:
(1) Whetherthe paper is appropriate or not for Cell Metabolism, as is or pending revisions. Pleasedetail the reasoning from a conceptual viewpoint of the field, and please provide references as needed to support this assessment.
(2) If the paper requires experimental revisions, please outline 3–5 key major concernsthatneed to be addressed. It is also possible to outline more than 5 areas that require major experimentation,though it is possible that the paper could not realistically be revised for the journal in a reasonable timeframe.
(3) Please list minor experimental and editorial comments after major concerns.
(4) Please comment on the general readability of the paper; the organization of the figures and supplemental data, including statistical issues; and proper referencing of the scientific literature.
(5) Reviewers may more candidly explain their recommendation or highlight more sensitive information in the confidential comments to theeditors.
Again, we are grateful for yourtime and effort and hope that youwillbenefit from these new guidelines at Cell Metabolism both as an author and a reviewer.