Cellular & Molecular Intelligence (CMI) maintains a rigorous, transparent, efficient, and fair peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and impactful research. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting the editorial evaluation of manuscripts and safeguarding the scientific integrity of the journal.

Reviewers are invited to provide independent expert assessment of manuscripts submitted to CMI. Qualifying manuscripts enter a single-blind peer review process and are evaluated by at least two independent experts in the field.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript’s:

• Scientific validity

• Methodological rigor

• Clarity of presentation

• Clinical or biological significance

• Relevance to the journal’s scope

• Ethical integrity and compliance with journal standards

Reviewer comments support the editors in making fair and evidence-based editorial decisions.

Every manuscript submitted to CMI first undergoes editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors. Manuscripts are assessed for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, and general quality.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s fundamental standards may be desk-rejected. Manuscripts that are considered suitable for further evaluation are sent for independent expert review.

Based on reviewer reports, the editors may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

• Minor Revision: Small changes or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Significant technical or conceptual improvements are needed.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication.

Final publication decisions rest solely with the editorial board to ensure independence, consistency, and adherence to the highest scientific standards.

All submitted materials and communications with reviewers remain strictly confidential. Reviewers must treat manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials as confidential documents.

Reviewer identities are protected under the journal’s single-blind review process, unless a different peer-review model is formally adopted by the journal.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors before accepting an invitation to review.

If a reviewer has a personal or professional connection to the authors, or a financial stake in the outcome of the study, the reviewer must recuse themselves from the review process to ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation.

Conflicts of interest may be financial or non-financial in nature.

Financial conflicts may include:

• Research funding or grants

• Employment or consultancy

• Honoraria or speaking fees

• Patents or patent applications

• Stock ownership or other financial investments

Non-financial conflicts may include:

• Advisory or leadership roles in organizations

• Institutional or professional affiliations

• Personal relationships

• Academic competition

• Strong intellectual, ideological, or professional positions that may affect interpretation of results

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on scientific content, methodological quality, clarity, and relevance to the field. The review process must support fair, unbiased, and objective editorial decision-making.

Reviewers should avoid any form of bias that may affect the integrity of the review. Evaluation should be based on the manuscript’s intellectual and scientific content.

Reviewers should be attentive to possible concerns related to research integrity, including:

• Plagiarism

• Data fabrication or falsification

• Image or dataset manipulation

• Redundant or duplicate publication

• Unethical research practices

• Inadequate documentation of ethics approval for human or animal research

When credible concerns regarding the integrity of a submission are identified, the journal may pause the peer review or publication process to conduct a preliminary internal assessment.

Where necessary, CMI may collaborate with authors’ home institutions, funding bodies, or relevant regulatory authorities to ensure a thorough investigation.

Reviewer comments should help editors assess the quality, reliability, and significance of the manuscript. Reviews should be clear, constructive, and focused on the scientific and methodological content of the work.

When a revision is requested, authors must provide a point-by-point response addressing reviewer comments. If substantial changes are made, the editor may return the manuscript to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Reviewer recommendations regarding citations should be made only for genuine scholarly reasons. Citation suggestions should not be used to artificially increase citations to CMI, another journal, the editor’s work, or the reviewer’s own work.

Editors may remove inappropriate citation suggestions from reviewer comments before they are sent to authors.

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board retain final authority over editorial decisions. Reviewers provide expert advice, but acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions are made by the editors based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal standards, and the scientific merit of the manuscript.

Complaints regarding editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, or suspected research misconduct are treated with seriousness. Investigations follow protocols established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal handles complaints with appropriate discretion to protect the rights of all parties involved during the investigative phase.