1.      Initial Manuscript Review

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Nanjing Medical University (Natural Sciences) will first be reviewed by the Academic Misconduct Literature Check System of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Manuscripts with an overall similarity rate higher than 15% and those with more than 50 consecutive identical Chinese characters will be considered to have an excessively high similarity rate and will be directly rejected. Manuscripts that have passed the check will be preliminary reviewed by the editorial office. The areas of the review include but are not limited to the preliminary review of academic misconduct, ethical review, and whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope of publication. Once the preliminary review is passed, the manuscript will proceed to a double-blind peer review.

2.      Reviewers Evaluation (Peer Review)

-         After the manuscript passes the preliminary review, the editor will select suitable reviewers based on their research fields, expertise, and potential conflict of interest with the author(s). The manuscript will then be sent anonymously in a double-blind format to two or more independent reviewers, with the editor facilitating the follow-up process. All reviewers are well-known experts and scholars in their respective fields.

-         Author(s) can recommend a reviewer in their field of study in the submission system (http://jnmu.njmu.edu.cn/zr/aumn/author/login). However, editors will not explicitly disclose if the manuscript will be submitted to this reviewer for review based on the double-blind review principle. The editors will evaluate the recommended reviewer(s) based on the accuracy of their general information, the relevance of their academic background to the research area of the manuscript, and any conflict of interest with the author(s) before deciding whether to send the work to the recommended reviewer(s) for peer review.

-  Reviewers should examine any possible relationships that may pose a conflict of interest with the manuscript under review. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should promptly inform the editor, disclosing all relevant interest relationships and avoiding conflict of interest. In case of uncertainty of whether a particular relationship constitutes a conflict of interest affecting the impartial review of the manuscript, reviewers should consult with the editor for further advice, and the editorial office will decide whether to assign an alternative reviewer depending on the circumstances.

- Reviewers should assess the work’s innovation, scientificity and practical relevance, providing feedback and suggestions on the study design, technical methods, data processing, article title, presentation of results, support for conclusions and suitability of referenced literature.

- The possible evaluation decisions reviewers may make include accepting the given article, rejecting it, or requesting revisions to the format and/or content.

- Reviewers will use the review template in the review system (http://jnmu.njmu.edu.cn/zr/aumn/reviewer/login) to complete and submit review reports. Ownership of the review report is retained by the editorial office, which holds full discretion over whether to forward the review report to the author(s).

- If the reviewers are unfamiliar with the research field of the manuscript or have no interest in the research topic, they may reject reviewing the article or recommend an alternative reviewer they consider appropriate to complete the review process.

- Reviewers should submit their review reports within 30 days. If they are unable to do so, they should promptly inform the editors via email or through the review system.

- If a reviewer suspects misconduct in a manuscript (e.g., academic misconduct or duplicate submission), they should promptly inform the editor and provide relevant information to allow the editorial office to investigate and address the issue in appropriate actions.

- Reviewers should adhere to confidentiality principles, refraining from disclosing manuscript content or related information to any irrelevant individuals during the review process. They should also avoid utilizing any information obtained during the manuscript review to benefit themselves, others, or organizations, or to engage in actions that could disadvantage others or organizations.

- In case of disagreement or divergence of the evaluation decisions among reviewers for the same manuscript, the editor will select an additional independent reviewer to re-evaluate the manuscript.

- After the author(s) have finalized their revision based on the feedback and suggestions of the peer reviewers, the editor-in-chief will determine whether a re-evaluation is necessary or if the manuscript can proceed directly to the publication process. This decision will depend on whether the revisions involve major structure, design, or methodology changes, or are only limited to textual editing and formatting adjustments.

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript rests with the editor-in-chief, even after positive reviewer evaluations. The primary criteria for acceptance are the manuscript’s quality, originality, and scientific significance. A decision on accepting, requesting revisions, or rejecting the manuscript will be made within three months of submission, and a decision letter will be sent to the first author and/or corresponding author’s email address.

3.      Other Matters

Our journal conducts regularly training sessions for editors and reviewers to familiarize them with the journal’s procedures, publication focus, policy requirements and publication standards, thereby ensuring the quality of the editorial process.

Editorial board members and editors are required to follow all review and editorial procedures when submitting their manuscripts to the journal. Editorial board members and editors must not participate in the review, editing process and acceptance decision making process of papers authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues. Peer review must be conducted independently from the author(s), editors and their research teams.

Author(s) who disagree with the review comments may appeal by submitting an “Appeal Letter,” including the manuscript ID, to our journal’s e-mail address: nyxb@njmu.edu.cn. The letter should clearly explain the reasons for the appeal, include a detailed and rational response to the review comments, and be stamped by the author(s)’ affiliated institutions to be valid. The editorial board will decide whether to accept the appeal based on the specific circumstances.

After the publication, our journal encourages discussion between authors and readers. Comments can be sent to our journal’s email: nyxb@njmu.edu.cn. The editorial office will address them and provide feedback if applicable. We also welcome authors to comment on the papers of our journal on third-party forums. Our journal is open to readers and authors to mutually supervise and actively contribute relevant feedback to foster a positive academic environment.