User Tools

 
 



Following is an outline describing the instructions for reviewing a manuscript for Molecular Medicine. Submission types include: Research Article, Review Article, Commentary, and Letter to the Editor. Submitted manuscripts should conform to the requirements set forth in the Instructions for Authors.

A description of the Editorial Process can be found here.

CRITERIA
The mission of Molecular Medicine is to publish recent original findings that elucidate the pathogenesis of disease at the molecular or physiological level, which may lead to the design of specific tools for disease diagnosis, treatment, or prevention. Manuscripts containing original material relevant to the genetic, molecular, or cellular basis of key physiologic or disease processes are considered for publication if neither the article nor any part of its essential substance, tables, or figures has been or will be published or submitted elsewhere before appearing in Molecular Medicine. Manuscripts published in Molecular Medicine should contain human or animal in vivo or ex vivo data and describe the implications of the results for human disease and medicine, at a level approachable by our broad audience. 

A manuscript review should include three parts. A short summary that puts the findings in context of existing literature 
and states if the work is original or confirmatory. A section detailing major issues such as flaws in design (including 
ethical violations), technique, interpretation, and how these could be addressed and improved. A section detailing minor issues, for example incorrect statement of facts, inconsistencies in reference citations, comments on figure readability. 
A manuscript review that comments solely on grammar without addressing any of the topics listed above is not constructive and may be discounted.

Score Sheet
Molecular Medicine provides a score sheet to reviewers for assistance with the peer review process. This information is for Editorial use only and is kept confidential, with the exception of the "Comments to the Author" section.

Points for Evaluation
In addition to the score sheet reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript.*

Scope – does the manuscript further our molecular understanding of disease pathogenesis? Does the work presented advance the field? Will the work presented alter clinical practice now or in the future? Does the work indicate a molecular tool for disease diagnosis, treatment or prevention? Does the work include either human or animal data (in vitro, in vivo, or ex vivo)? In most cases, manuscripts including work conducted solely on purchased cell lines are not accepted. Manuscripts falling outside the scope of the journal will not be sent for peer review, however, for some manuscripts this will not be apparent without a full review.

Research Objectives – do the authors clearly state the research objectives in the introduction? Have the objectives been met and sufficiently supported by the data presented? Is the work preliminary or incomplete?

Study Design and Methodology – evaluate whether the authors have appropriately designed the experiments. Are the methods appropriate and correctly executed? Have methods been sufficiently described? A one-sentence description of a method is inappropriate. Has an analysis been offered and correctly completed? Were the correct statistical evaluations supplied?

Soundness of Results – are the data reliable? Has information regarding number of experiments, repetitions, or experimental and control groups been provided? Is this information clear in the text?

Interpretation – have the authors reasonably interpreted the results? Are the conclusions logical? Are there other conclusions?

Originality and Significance – is the work original or does it confirm other existing reports? Does the work represent a considerable advance or is it merely incremental?

Existing Literature – have appropriate references been cited to place the work in a framework of existing literature? Are there important references not cited? Are there too many or too few citations?

Overall Presentation – does the work follow a logical path in presentation? Do the figures support the story, are they easy to follow? Is the work easy to read? Will it need editing for grammar and syntax – if so, how much?

Policy Requirements – have the authors included appropriate statements and approvals regarding human and/or animal work? Are there any ethical violations? If any figures have been adapted or reproduced from previous work, are they properly cited? Are accession numbers provided and/or data been deposited in public databases?

Timing
Molecular Medicine places a high priority on rapid publication. As such, reviewers are asked to respond to invitations of review promptly. Reviewers are asked to return reviews within 10 days of accepting an invitation. Late reviews are noted and taken into consideration for future invitations.

Confidentiality
Molecular Medicine follows a single-blind model of peer review. The identity of the reviewer remains anonymous to the author. Reviewer comments may be provided to the author in the decision letter, however reviewer anonymity is maintained. Reviewers are also given the opportunity to submit confidential comments to the Editor that will not be disclosed to those outside the editorial staff.

Reviewers will not be able to access a full manuscript until the invitation to review is accepted. Only the abstract and list of authors will be included in the invitation email. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality of the work. Any use or distribution of the manuscript or its ideas outside the peer-review process is strictly prohibited. Any electronic or paper copies of the manuscript should be destroyed once the completed review is submitted. Should you wish to include a colleague in the review process, please contact the Associate Editor in charge of the manuscript for approval. 

Reviewers should not contact the authors of the paper. Any questions regarding the manuscript or peer review should be directed to the Associate Editor handling the manuscript or to the editorial office: editor@molmed.org.


Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest should be reported to the Associate Editor handling the manuscript. Reviewers are discouraged from reviewing work in which they have a conflict of interest. If a reviewer suspects any undisclosed conflict of interest in the manuscript he or she is reviewing, we ask that this conflict be reported to the Editors. The Editors will investigate the claim at their discretion.

Submission of Review 
Reviews must be submitted via our online manuscript administration system: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/molmed
Should you have difficulty with this system, please contact the editorial office: editor@molmed.org. Once logged in, click on the icon for "Reviewer Center". Manuscripts to be reviewed will be listed at the top of the screen. To view a PDF of the work click 'View Submission' next to the title. To perform the review click on the magnifying glass under 'Perform Review'. You will see instructions for review and be able to view the work as an HTML file or a PDF file. Should you need to contact the Associate Editor handling the manuscript, click on the 'Details' tab at the top. The Associate Editor's name and link to his/her email will be at the bottom. To complete your review, click on the tab called 'Score Sheet'. When you are finished click 'save as draft' then click 'submit'.

CONTACT US
The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research
Editorial Offices of Molecular Medicine
350 Community Drive
Manhasset, NY 11030 USA
Telephone: (516) 562-2114
Fax: (516) 562-1022
Email