World Journal of Diabetes & Metabolism

Reviewer guidelines

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team to determine its relevance, quality, and suitability for the journal’s review process. In certain cases, manuscripts may also be assessed by members of the Advisory Editorial Board for additional expert input. To ensure an efficient review system for both authors and reviewers, only manuscripts that closely align with the journal’s editorial standards are forwarded for external peer review.

Manuscripts selected for peer review are generally evaluated by up to three independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the overall scientific merit of the work, the editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline the submission. Common reasons for rejection may include limited novelty, insufficient scientific contribution, lack of broader relevance, or significant methodological and interpretational concerns.

Editorial decisions are made through careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses rather than by simple numerical scoring or majority opinion. Therefore, reviewer reports that provide balanced, well-supported, and constructive feedback are considered particularly valuable in the decision-making process.

Transparent review process

Genesis Scientific Publication makes the editorial process transparent for all accepted manuscripts by publishing the reviewer reports alongside published papers, as well as all correspondence between authors and the editors relevant to the decision process.

Reviewer anonymity will be strictly maintained.

Reviewers should note that their reports as well as the authors' point-by-point responses will be included in this document. Factually incorrect statements should be avoided, and arguments in favour or disfavour of a given study should be justified. We also encourage reviewers to be very clear about what revision will be required for a manuscript to become acceptable. It should be apparent to the author and the editor how to proceed without need for additional consultation.

To further ensure a transparent editorial process, our journals do not ask for 'confidential comments to the editor'. Please note that urgent further issues that cannot be included in the reviewer report, in particular concerns about ethical standards, data integrity, biosecurity or conflicts of an academic or commercial nature, should be communicated directly to the editor via email.

To enhance the consistency of the peer-review process, the editors provide the opportunity for reviewers to comment on each other's reports before making their decision. This allows extreme opinions to be scrutinised at an early point and mistakes to be detected.

Authors have the option to request that the journal posts reviews obtained via peer review at the journal alongside a preprint version of the manuscript on bio/medRxiv, including an author response to the reviews. As above, reviewer anonymity is preserved.

Reviewer selection and reviewer responsibilities

Reviewer selection is based on a balance of factors, including expertise, scientific reputation, and our previous experience with the reviewer. We send manuscripts to reviewers only after having contacted them about the possibility first, and expect reviewers to treat this initial request as confidential.

Genesis Scientific Publication is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, as efficiency in this process is a valuable service both to our authors and the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask that reviewers respond promptly or inform us if they anticipate a significant delay, which allows us to keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative reviewers.

To avoid unnecessary delays in processing manuscripts, please do the following immediately upon receipt of a manuscript for review:

• Double-check the deadline and contact the editorial office immediately if you anticipate any difficulties in meeting it
• Consider whether there might be a conflict of interest for you (see guidelines below) and whether you can judge the article impartially

 

Reviewers should treat the review process with strict confidence, and should keep the following guidelines in mind: Manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone not directly involved in the review process. If colleagues are consulted, they should be identified to the editors. If experts from outside the reviewer’s own laboratory are consulted, reviewers should check with the editors beforehand to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the editor. Reviewers should not disclose their identities to the authors or to other colleagues since they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and may then find it difficult to be objective. Should they feel strongly about making their identities known to the authors, they should do so via the editor and also have the option to sign their report. We strongly disapprove of any attempt by authors to determine the identities of reviewers or to confront them, and encourage reviewers to neither confirm nor deny any speculation in this regard.

Co-reviewers

We encourage reviewers to ask for a senior member of his/her lab to co-review a paper. Co-review implies that the co-reviewer is supervised to provide an authoritative, professional reviewer report and the primary reviewer explicitly agrees with all the points raised by the co-reviewer. Co-review with other senior colleagues, for example to complement expertise, may be possible, but requires pre-consultation with the editor as the co-reviewer might have been excluded by the authors. Co-reviewers must be named in the dedicated text box in the reviewer form.

Review report formatting 

The primary purpose of reviewer reports is to provide the editors with the information that they need to reach a decision, but they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript if revision is a possibility.

Reviewers are asked to maintain a critical but constructive and impartial attitude in evaluating manuscripts. Criticisms should remain dispassionate; offensive language is not acceptable. A negative report should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that they can understand the basis for a decision to ask for revision or to reject the manuscript.

Reviewer reports tend to follow the following general structure:

Summary

• Describe your understanding of the story
• What are the key conclusions: specific findings and concepts
• What were the methodology and model system used in this study

 

General remarks

• Are you convinced of the key conclusions?
• Place the work in its context.
• What is the nature of the advance (conceptual, technical, clinical)?
• How significant is the advance compared to previous knowledge?
• What audience will be interested in this study?

 

Major points

• Specific criticisms related to key conclusions
• Specify experiments or analyses required to demonstrate the conclusions
• Motivate your critique with relevant citations and argumentation

 

Minor points

• Easily addressable points
• Presentation and style
• Trivial mistakes

 

We do not suppress reviewer reports. On rare occasions, however, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information. We ask reviewers to avoid saying anything that may cause needless offence, but also expect authors to recognise that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.

Conflict of interest

Competing reviewer/advisor interests exist if the reviewer/advisor is currently engaged in, is planning to engage in or would consider engaging in, related experiments that could benefit from unpublished information acquired from the manuscript under consideration, has financial or commercial interests or previous personal or professional connection to the authors. This information must be shared with the editor regardless of the reviewers’ level of support for the work.

Reviewers are expected to decide whether they have competing interests based on the abstract and author list (for non-blinded papers) before they accept to review the manuscript. Because it is not possible for the editors to know all potential conflicts or biases, we request potential reviewers to alert the editors to anything that might affect the neutrality of their report, and to decline in cases where they feel unable to be objective. Should a reviewer accept the invitation and discover during manuscript assessment that he/she has competing interests, we expect the reviewer to notify the editor immediately and to permanently delete any of the accessed manuscript files.

Examples where reviewers should consult with the editor:

• The author and reviewer previously worked closely together (e.g. in the same department, or had professional cooperation).
• Employed by the same institute: The reviewer and author work on the same campus and directly interacted. Note that some institutions are very large, and the reviewer and author may not have any interaction on campus – in such cases no further discussion is necessary. At smaller institutes, the reviewer and author may know or have had some level of engagement with each other even if they do not work in the same department.
• The reviewer sits on a scientific advisory board that was involved with approving the authors’ research proposal or position.
• Editorial: The reviewer is an editor at a competing journal and has interests in the paper being published at his/her journal.
• Former advisors/mentors: It is recommended to avoid having a former advisor/advisee from the past 10 years review an authors’ work. Please discuss with the editor as each case will be decided individually.
• The reviewer disagrees a priori with the conclusions or the research presented, or with the work from a given laboratory, which interferes with his/her neutrality on the study.

 

In spite of our best efforts to identify breaches of publication policy or ethical conduct, such as plagiarism or author conflict of interest, the reviewers who are more familiar with the field are more likely to recognise such problems and should alert the editors to any potential problems in this regard.

Reviewer feedback and credit

When a revised manuscript is resubmitted following reviewer comments, we may invite the original reviewers to evaluate the updated version and provide further feedback. In such cases, reviewers are generally given access to the comments submitted by other reviewers to support a balanced assessment process. Upon request, reviewers may also be informed of the editorial decision and provided with anonymized reviewer reports.

If the final editorial decision differs from a reviewer’s recommendation, this should not be interpreted as a reflection on the value of their evaluation. Differences in scientific opinion are common in peer review, and editors must ultimately make decisions based on the overall assessment and available expert input.

 

Peer Review Process

At Genesis Scientific Publications, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, scientific quality, and ethical publishing through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. While the review workflow may vary slightly among journals, the general process is outlined below:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system along with all required documents, declarations, and supplementary files.

2. Preliminary Editorial Check

The Editorial Office performs an initial screening to ensure that the submission complies with the journal’s formatting requirements, ethical standards, and author guidelines. Manuscripts that are incomplete or outside the journal’s scope may be returned before peer review.

3. Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial team evaluates the manuscript for originality, scientific relevance, methodological quality, and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s editorial standards may be declined at this stage.

4. Assignment to Handling Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor or Handling Editor with expertise relevant to the subject area, who supervises the peer review process.

5. Reviewer Invitation

Qualified independent reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript. The journal generally seeks evaluations from at least two expert reviewers to ensure a fair and balanced review process.

6. Reviewer Acceptance

Invited reviewers assess the manuscript invitation based on their area of expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers who are unable to participate may recommend alternative experts.

7. Peer Review Assessment

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript for scientific accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, clarity, methodology, interpretation of findings, and overall contribution to the field. Detailed comments and recommendations are submitted to assist both the editors and authors.

8. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor carefully considers all reviewer comments before making a recommendation. Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor or major revisions, or rejected. In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, additional expert review may be requested.

9. Communication with Authors

The editorial decision, along with reviewer comments and recommendations, is communicated to the corresponding author. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless the journal follows an open peer review policy.

10. Revision, Acceptance, and Publication

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to address all reviewer comments and resubmit a revised version within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review before a final decision is made. Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, production, and publication.

Genesis Scientific Publications values a fair, unbiased, and timely review process that supports the advancement of high-quality scientific research worldwide.