Clinical & Molecular Biomedicine (CMB) relies on expert peer reviewers to support the publication of high-quality, ethical, and scientifically reliable biomedical research. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the scientific validity, methodological rigor, clarity, originality, and clinical or biological significance of submitted manuscripts.

The peer review process at CMB is designed to be rigorous, fair, confidential, constructive, and independent.

Reviewers are invited to provide an independent expert assessment of manuscripts submitted to CMB. Their evaluation helps editors determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication, requires revision, or should be rejected.

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

CMB follows a single-blind peer review process. Reviewer identities are protected unless the journal adopts a different review model for a specific case.

Manuscripts considered suitable after initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether they have:

• Appropriate expertise in the subject area

• Sufficient time to complete the review properly

• No conflict of interest that may affect objectivity

• Ability to maintain confidentiality throughout the process

Reviewers who are unable to provide a timely or appropriate review should decline the invitation promptly so that the editor may invite another reviewer.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.

A conflict of interest may be financial or non-financial and may include:

• Personal or professional relationships with the authors

• Recent collaboration with the authors

• Direct academic competition

• Financial interest in the outcome of the research

• Institutional affiliation or professional connection that may affect objectivity

• Strong intellectual, ideological, or academic positions that may influence judgment

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should recuse themselves from the review process. The purpose of disclosure is to ensure that the evaluation remains fair, unbiased, and objective.

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, supplementary materials, figures, data, and related documents must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with others without permission from the editor

• Discuss the manuscript with colleagues or third parties without authorization

• Use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal, academic, or professional advantage

• Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript

• Disclose reviewer identity unless explicitly permitted by the journal

Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer review materials.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, supplementary files, or confidential review materials into public or external AI tools.

AI tools must not be used to generate fraudulent peer review responses, automated reviewer feedback, or any content intended to manipulate the peer review process.

Reviewer comments and recommendations must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgment.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope

• Originality and contribution to the field

• Scientific validity

• Methodological rigor

• Ethical compliance

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript

• Quality of data presentation

• Appropriateness of statistical analysis

• Clinical or biological significance

• Adequacy of references and citations

• Transparency of materials, methods, and data availability

Reviewers should evaluate whether the research question is clearly stated, the study design is appropriate, the methods are sufficiently described, and the conclusions are supported by the results.

For experimental, clinical, computational, or translational studies, reviewers should assess whether the methodology allows reproducibility and whether limitations are clearly addressed.

Reviewers should alert the editor to any concerns related to research ethics, including:

• Lack of ethics committee or Institutional Review Board approval

• Missing informed consent statements

• Inadequate animal welfare documentation

• Possible patient privacy concerns

• Suspected data fabrication or falsification

• Suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication

• Inappropriate image or dataset manipulation

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

• Unclear funding disclosure

Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations but should report concerns confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should examine figures, images, tables, and datasets carefully for clarity, consistency, and possible signs of inappropriate manipulation.

Reviewers should alert the editor if they notice:

• Image duplication

• Suspicious image splicing

• Inconsistent figure labels

• Manipulation that may obscure or alter original data

• Data inconsistencies between text, tables, and figures

• Missing raw data or insufficient methodological detail

Where necessary, reviewers may recommend that authors provide original data, unprocessed images, protocols, or additional supporting documentation.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows relevant reporting standards, where applicable.

Examples include:

• CONSORT for randomized clinical trials

• STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies

• PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• SPIRIT for clinical trial protocols

• ARRIVE for animal research

Reviewers may recommend that authors provide completed reporting checklists, flow diagrams, trial registration information, or additional methodological details where required.

Reviewers should evaluate whether the references are relevant, accurate, balanced, and properly cited.

Citation suggestions should be made only for genuine scholarly reasons. Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, the journal, or other publications for the purpose of increasing citation counts or influencing metrics.

Any suggested citation should directly improve the scholarly accuracy, context, or completeness of the manuscript.

Reviewer reports should be clear, respectful, objective, and constructive.

Reviewers should:

• Identify major strengths and weaknesses

• Explain concerns with evidence and reasoning

• Distinguish major issues from minor issues

• Provide specific suggestions for improvement

• Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language

• Maintain a professional and academic tone

Comments should help authors improve the quality, clarity, and reliability of the manuscript, even when the reviewer recommends rejection.

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary.

Confidential comments may include:

• Ethical concerns

• Suspected misconduct

• Concerns about conflicts of interest

• Serious methodological or data-integrity concerns

• Recommendation rationale not appropriate for author-facing comments

Confidential comments should not contradict the comments provided to authors unless there is a clear ethical or editorial reason.

After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires small corrections, clarifications, or limited improvements.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial technical, methodological, conceptual, or structural improvement before further consideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are considered together with other reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed previous comments.

Reviewers should evaluate:

• The point-by-point response to reviewer comments

• Changes made in the manuscript

• Adequacy of new explanations, analyses, or data

• Whether remaining concerns affect the reliability or clarity of the work

If major concerns remain unresolved, reviewers should clearly explain why further revision or rejection may be necessary.

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the timeframe requested by the editorial office.

If a reviewer needs more time, they should inform the editor as early as possible. If a reviewer can no longer complete the review, they should notify the editor promptly.

Timely review supports efficient editorial decision-making and helps avoid unnecessary delays for authors.

Reviewers must conduct reviews with integrity, fairness, independence, and professionalism.

Reviewers must not use the peer review process to:

• Gain personal advantage

• Delay publication unfairly

• Promote personal citations without scholarly justification

• Share confidential information

• Misuse unpublished data or ideas

• Discriminate against authors based on personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, gender, religion, political opinion, or other non-scientific factors

If reviewers suspect misconduct or serious ethical concerns, they should report the matter confidentially to the editor.

Possible concerns may include plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or peer review manipulation.

CMB handles such concerns according to established publication ethics procedures and may consult relevant institutions, funding bodies, or ethics organizations where necessary.

CMB recognizes the valuable contribution of peer reviewers to the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing. Reviewers support the journal’s mission by helping ensure that published research is scientifically sound, ethically responsible, and clinically or biologically meaningful.