Open Access Pub
Editors Guidelines Journal of Peptides
An editor decides what the journal publishes and is accountable for that decision. These guidelines set out how the journal asks its editors to reach it.
Initial assessment
Reading a submission for what it is
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. The first question is whether the peptide is scientifically central to the manuscript — whether the contribution is about the peptide. That contribution may be chemical, structural, analytical, biological, computational, pharmacological or translational, and none of those is required of the others.
Assess each manuscript by the standards of its own kind of work. A synthesis paper, a structural study, a methods contribution, a computational analysis and an applied study are each judged against the claims they make; none is held to the evidentiary standard of another. Do not apply a chemical, structural, mechanistic, clinical, novelty or experimental requirement that the manuscript's own claims do not call for.
Screening establishes scope and minimum requirements. Manuscripts that meet them proceed to independent peer review; the full basis is on the Aims and Scope page.
Reviewers
Choosing and briefing reviewers
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.
Select reviewers whose expertise matches the contribution being made rather than the subject area in general: a protecting-group study and a receptor-binding study need different readers. Check that a prospective reviewer has no competing interest with the authors, the funders or the work.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Reports
Handling reviewer reports
Read reports for their reasoning, not their verdict. A report that recommends rejection without supporting it carries less weight than one that identifies a specific problem; where reports disagree, the disagreement itself is information, and a further opinion may be warranted.
Pass on the substance authors need in order to respond, and remove language that is discourteous or that addresses the authors rather than the work. Where a reviewer raises an ethical concern, take it up separately from the scientific assessment.
Conflicts
When to stand aside
Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions and on work by close collaborators, recent co-authors, members of their own group, or anyone with whom they have a financial or personal interest. Those manuscripts are handled independently by another editor.
Serving on the board confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor's own work. The full statement is in the Editorial Policies.
Decisions
Reaching and recording a decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions are independent of article processing charges, membership, language editing, editorial appointment and reviewing. No manuscript is handled sooner, or judged more favorably, because of any of them.
State the decision plainly and give the reasons for it, so that authors can act on a revision request and understand a rejection. Where a decision departs from the reviewers' recommendations, say why.
Confidentiality
Handling manuscripts and tools
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the editorial process, do not share it beyond the reviewers assigned to it, and do not use unpublished material for any other purpose.
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.
The same restriction applies to editors. It covers all externally hosted tools, not only publicly available ones.
After publication
Responsibility does not end at acceptance
Where an error affecting a reader's understanding comes to light, the journal issues a correction linked to the article; where findings are invalidated or publication ethics have been breached, it issues a retraction notice stating the reason. Articles are not removed from the record.
Concerns raised after publication are taken up with the authors and, where necessary, their institution. Editors who become aware of a possible problem should raise it with the editorial office at the editorial office rather than acting alone.