Reviewer Resources
JC provides practical tools to help reviewers deliver high quality, consistent reviews.
Resource Toolkit
Review Checklist
Core criteria for assessing scope, methods, and evidence.
Ethics Guidance
Conflict of interest and confidentiality standards for reviewers.
Decision Framework
Suggested structure for major and minor revision recommendations.
Resources are updated periodically; request the latest versions anytime.
Best Practice Reminders
Focus on the manuscript's contribution to chromosome science, not on author identity or institutional affiliation. Provide specific, actionable feedback with examples.
Use neutral language and avoid dismissive comments that do not help the authors improve.
Balanced reviews should acknowledge strengths while identifying areas for improvement.
Structuring Your Report
Start with a brief summary of the manuscript in your own words to show you understood the work. Then list major issues that affect validity or clarity, followed by minor corrections or suggestions.
Clear structure helps editors make decisions and helps authors prioritize revisions.
Data And Methods Checks
Verify that methods are described in enough detail to support replication and that conclusions are supported by the presented evidence. Note missing controls, unclear sampling, or unreported limitations.
If data availability statements are incomplete, request clarification. Transparent reporting strengthens confidence in the findings. Flag missing scale bars or unclear image labels.
Reviewing Interdisciplinary Work
Chromosome science spans genetics, imaging, clinical diagnostics, and computational modeling. Evaluate whether authors clearly explain concepts and justify methodological choices for a broad audience.
Flag unclear terminology or assumptions that may confuse readers from other disciplines.
When To Raise Concerns
If you suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical issues, notify the editor through confidential comments. Provide evidence or citations where possible.
The editorial office will handle investigations and follow up as needed.
Recommendation Guidance
Use the decision framework to align recommendations with the level of revision required. Major revision should reflect substantive changes to methods, analysis, or interpretation.
Minor revision should focus on clarity, formatting, or small corrections.
Timelines And Availability
If you cannot complete a review on time, inform the editorial office promptly so an alternate reviewer can be invited. You may also request extensions when needed.
Let us know your preferred review window when accepting invitations.
Early notice helps keep review cycles on track.
Need A Resource Pack?
Email the editorial office to request templates or updated guidance. We respond promptly and supply resources quickly for reviewers and guest reviewers too.
