Journal of Enzymes · ISSN 2690-4829
For Reviewers
What the journal asks of a reviewer, what a useful report for an enzyme manuscript contains, and the rules that govern the manuscript while you have it.
01 · The invitation
Accepting or declining
Declining promptly is more useful to the authors than accepting and delaying, and suggesting someone better placed is more useful still.
-
Expertise
Accept where you can judge the specific claim. You need not be able to assess every part of a manuscript; say in your reply which parts you can speak to and which you cannot, so the editor can cover the rest.
-
Competing interests
Decline where you are a recent co-author of an author, work at their institution, have a financial interest in the outcome, or hold any other relationship that could be seen to affect your judgment. Tell the editor the reason.
-
Capacity
Accept only if you can complete the review in the time the invitation states. If your circumstances change afterwards, tell the editorial office rather than letting the manuscript wait.
-
Reviewing is a role, not a standing
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer's own submissions.
02 · The report
What a review should do
A review serves two readers: the editor, who needs a judgment with reasons, and the authors, who need to know what to do. Write for both.
-
Say what the paper claims, in your own words
Opening with your reading of the central claim lets the authors see at once whether they have communicated it, and lets the editor weigh the rest of your report.
-
Judge the evidence against that claim
Are the experiments capable of answering the question, are the controls right, are the statistics appropriate, and do the conclusions stay within what the data support?
-
Separate the essential from the desirable
Mark which points must be addressed for the work to be sound and which are suggestions. A list that does not distinguish them is hard for an editor to act on and demoralising for authors.
-
Be specific and be courteous
Cite the page, figure or line. Criticise the work, never the authors. Where you believe something is wrong, say what would change your mind.
-
Say what you could not assess
An honest boundary around your own expertise is more valuable than a confident opinion outside it.
-
Concerns about integrity
If you suspect plagiarism, image manipulation, undisclosed duplication or fabricated data, raise it with the editor in your confidential comments rather than in the report to the authors, and give your reasons.
03 · This journal's papers
Reviewing enzyme work
Enzyme results depend on the conditions under which they were obtained, so most reviewing for this journal comes down to whether those conditions are reported and whether they support the number.
-
Identity of the enzyme
Is the enzyme identified by EC number and named according to IUBMB nomenclature? For a recombinant protein, are the construct, host and purification stated, and is purity assessed?
-
Assay conditions
Are buffer, pH, temperature and ionic strength given, with the substrate concentration range, and is that range appropriate to the parameter being determined? Are the controls described?
-
Kinetic parameters
Are Km, Vmax and kcat reported with errors and correct units, is the fitting method and software named, and does the model fitted match the mechanism claimed?
-
Mechanistic claims
Does the evidence reach the mechanism asserted, or does it reach a correlation that is consistent with it? Mutagenesis results should be compared with the wild type measured under identical conditions.
-
Structures and sequences
Are coordinates and maps deposited with accession codes, are refinement statistics given, and do the structural figures show what the text says they show?
-
Applied and clinical claims
Subject eligibility and evidential strength are separate questions. Applied, diagnostic or therapeutic conclusions need the evidence those conclusions require; judge the claim actually made rather than the field it belongs to.
-
Reproducibility
Could a competent reader repeat the central measurement from the Methods as written? If not, say precisely what is missing.
04 · While you hold it
Confidentiality, AI tools and files
A manuscript sent for review is unpublished, confidential work belonging to its authors.
-
Confidentiality
Do not disclose the submission or its content to anyone, and do not use its material or ideas in your own work. If you want to involve a colleague or a student in the review, ask the editor first and name them.
-
Double-blind manuscripts
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
-
Artificial-intelligence tools
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
This covers every externally hosted tool, not only public ones.
-
Files, afterwards
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
05 · How review runs
The review model
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Your report informs the decision; it does not make it. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Where reviewers disagree, the editor weighs the reasoning rather than counting the recommendations.
The full policy set is in Editorial Policies, and what authors were asked to provide is in Instructions for Authors.
06 · Taking part
Reviewing for this journal
Researchers working in any area of enzyme science are welcome to offer to review. Write to the editorial office at [email protected] with your area of expertise, your affiliation and a summary of your relevant work, and you will be considered for invitations in your field.
The journal's editors are listed, with their areas and profiles, on Editorial Board. Guidance for editors is on For Editors.
Questions about a review in progress: [email protected].
Journal of Enzymes · ISSN 2690-4829 · Open Access Pub