FOR REVIEWERS
About the journal |Criteria for publication |
The review process |
Selecting reviewers |
Upon receiving a manuscript to review |
Confidentiality |
Writing the report |
Editing reviewer reports |
Timing |
Conflicts of interest |
Publication policy and ethical considerations |
Top of page
About the journal
Molecular Therapy is the monthly publication of the American Society of Gene Therapy (ASGT). The journal publishes original scientific papers in the areas of gene transfer, gene regulation, gene discovery, cell therapy, experimental models, correction of genetic and acquired diseases, and clinical trials. Molecular Therapy publishes timely reviews, commentaries, and scientific correspondence. Manuscripts describing new methodological advances are also considered for publication. Although Molecular Therapy is the official journal of ASGT, it is international in scope and publication. The major criteria for acceptance and publication of a manuscript are originality, high quality, scientific rigor, and interest to a wide audience of readers.
Top of pageCriteria for publication
Molecular Therapy receives many more submissions than it can publish each month. It is therefore important that manuscripts are critically evaluated for compliance with the following criteria:
- strong evidence for the conclusions that are drawn
- novelty (abstracts and meeting reports do not preclude novelty)
- broad biological significance
- importance to the specific field
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the editor(s) for suitability for the review process. The views of an Associate Editor and/or Editorial Board member may be sought for further input towards this decision. To save authors and reviewers time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent out for formal review.
Manuscripts that are sent for formal review typically go to two reviewers. Based on their advice, the Editor decides to:
- accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision
- invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
- or reject the manuscript, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Reviewers may recommend a particular course of action in their confidential comments to the Editor. Furthermore, editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, but rather are based on an evaluation of the strengths of the arguments raised by each referee and by the authors. The most useful reports, therefore, are those that set out clear, substantiated arguments and refrain from recommending a course of action in the comments directed to the authors.
Reviewers may, on occasion, be asked for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with one another, or where the authors believe that they have been misunderstood on points of fact. This kind of discussion is sometimes necessary to provide an effective and fair review process. We do understand, however, that reviewers are reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum as judged necessary to come to a fair conclusion. In certain cases, additional reviewers or Editorial Board members may be consulted to resolve disputes.
Top of pageSelecting reviewers
Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. We avoid using reviewers who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or too lenient. We invite reviewers and only on acceptance of the invitation will a reviewer have access to the full paper.
Top of pageUpon receiving a manuscript to review
To avoid unnecessary delays in processing manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of a manuscript for review:
- double-check the deadline to ensure that there have been no misunderstandings regarding timing, and contact the editorial office immediately if you anticipate any difficulties in meeting it
- read the editor's letter carefully and be sure to note any points specific to the manuscript that the editor may have requested your opinion on
- skim the manuscript and consider whether there might be a conflict of interest for you (with the authors, their institution, their funding sources) and whether you can judge the article impartially
- consider whether the topic seems to fit the scope of the journal and is likely to be of sufficient general interest for publication.
Confidentiality
Reviewers should treat the review process as strictly confidential and should keep the following guidelines in mind:
- manuscripts reviewed for Molecular Therapy should not be discussed with anyone outside the review process
- if colleagues are consulted, they should be identified to the Editor
- if experts from outside the reviewer's own laboratory are consulted, reviewers should check with the Editors beforehand to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded
- reviewers should, as a rule, not disclose their identities to the authors or to other colleagues since they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and may then find it difficult to be objective. Should they feel strongly about making their identities known to the authors, they should do so via the Editor. We strongly disapprove of any attempt by authors to determine the identities of reviewers or to confront them, and encourage reviewers to neither confirm nor deny any speculation in this regard.
Writing the report
The primary purpose of reviewer report is to provide the Editor with the information that they need to reach a decision, but they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript if revision is a possibility. Reviewers are asked to submit both confidential comments to the Editor and those that can be directly transmitted to the authors. We recommend the following division of the report:
Comments for transmission to the authors
Reviewers are asked to maintain a positive and impartial, but critical, attitude in evaluating manuscripts. Criticisms should remain dispassionate; offensive language is not acceptable. As far as possible, a negative report should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that they can understand the basis for a decision to ask for revision or to reject the manuscript.
The ideal report should include:
- an initial paragraph summarizing the major findings and overall impressions, as well as highlighting major shortcomings of the manuscript.
- specific numbered comments, which may be broken down into major and minor criticisms if appropriate (numbering facilitates both the Editor's evaluation of the manuscript and the authors' rebuttal to the report).
The report should answer the following questions:
- What are the major claims and how significant are they?
- Are the claims novel and convincing?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?
- Who will be interested and why?
- Does the paper stand out in some way from the others in its field?
- Are there other experiments that would strengthen the paper?
For manuscripts that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if reviewers can provide advice on the following points where appropriate:
- how the clarity of the writing might be improved (without necessarily going into specific details of spelling and grammar)
- how the manuscript might be shortened
- how to do the study justice without overselling the claims
- how to represent earlier literature more fairly
- how to improve the presentation of methodological detail so that the experiments can be reproduced
- the submission of supplementary data on the Molecular Therapy web site to enhance the presentation (depositing, for example, crystallographic information, source code for modelling studies, microarray data, detailed methods, mathematical derivations, long tables and movies).
This author report should not include a recommendation regarding publication, which is regarded as confidential information since the final decision regarding acceptance, revision or rejection rests with the editor.
Confidential evaluation
Additional confidential comments to the Editor might include:
- a definite recommendation regarding publication
- an assessment of how much any suggested additional experiments would improve the manuscript and of how difficult they would be to complete within a reasonable timeframe (1-2 months)
- in cases where the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, an opinion about whether the study is sufficiently promising to encourage resubmission in the future.
Editing reviewer reports
As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewer reports. Almost always, any comments intended for the authors are transmitted. On rare occasions, however, we may edit a report where the reviewer has made an obvious factual mistake, or to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information. We ask reviewers to avoid saying anything that may be offensive, but also expect authors to recognize that criticisms are meant to be constructive.
Top of pageTiming
Molecular Therapy is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication - our efficient review times are a valuable service both to our authors and the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask that reviewers respond promptly or inform us if they anticipate a significant delay, which allows us to keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative reviewers.
Top of pageConflicts of interest
In order to ensure fairness in the referee process, we try to avoid reviewers who: have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors; have commented on drafts of the manuscript; are in direct competition; have a history of dispute with the authors; and/or, have a financial interest in the outcome. Because it is not possible for the Editor to know of all possible biases, we ask reviewers to inform us of anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and to decline reviewing in cases they feel they are unable to be objective. We do not find it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as qualified does not decrease the validity of his/her opinion.
Top of pagePublication policy and ethical considerations
In spite of our best efforts to identify breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct (such as plagiarism or author conflict of interest), reviewers are more likely to recognize an inconsistency or error and should alert the Editor to any potential problem.
