Reviewer Guidelines

How to write your report

Reviewer Guidelines

Future Molecular Science is committed to publishing high-quality, rigorously peer-reviewed research. Peer review is the foundation of scientific publishing, and we rely on the expertise and dedication of our reviewers to uphold these standards. We sincerely appreciate your time and contribution.

Before Accepting the Invitation

Please consider the following before agreeing to review a manuscript:

  • Expertise: accept only if the manuscript falls within your area of competence.

  • Availability: you will be asked to complete your review within 14 days. If you cannot meet this timeline, please inform the editorial office promptly.

  • Confidentiality: all manuscripts are strictly confidential and must not be shared or discussed with anyone without the editor's permission.

  • Conflict of interest: decline if you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts that could affect your objectivity, and disclose any relevant relationships to the editor.

Writing Your Report

We encourage you to organise your report around the following elements to ensure clarity and usefulness to both the authors and the editor:

1. Key Results

  • What is the most significant advance or conclusion reported in this manuscript?

  • Is it clearly stated and supported by the data?

2. Validity

  • Are the conclusions reliable? Do the methods and data justify the claims made?

  • Are there any fatal flaws that undermine the scientific validity of the work?

3. Significance

  • How does this work advance the field?

  • Is it of sufficient interest to the journal's broad readership?

4. Data and Methodology

  • Are the data presented accurately and in sufficient detail?

  • Are the methods appropriate and adequately described to enable reproducibility?

5. Suggested Improvements

  • Provide constructive suggestions for improvement, distinguishing between essential and optional revisions.

  • Be specific and actionable—help the authors see how to strengthen their work.

6. Clarity and Context

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?

  • Are the figures and tables effective in communicating the findings?

  • Are relevant prior works appropriately cited?

Structure of Your Report

We recommend that your review include the following sections:

  1. Summary: a brief overview of the manuscript's main findings and contributions.

  2. Major Comments: substantive concerns that must be addressed to establish the scientific validity of the work.

  3. Minor Comments: suggestions for improvement that are not essential but would enhance clarity or presentation.

  4. Recommendation: Please select one of the following:

    • Accept (as is or with minor revisions)

    • Major Revisions Required

    • Minor Revisions Required

    • Reject (with explanation)

Wherever possible, please offer concrete suggestions for revision and identify the key points that would need to be addressed for the manuscript to be reconsidered.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • All manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone without prior authorization.

  • Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. With the exception of using AI tools to polish their own review text (as outlined below), reviewers should not upload any part of the manuscript into generative AI models, as this would violate confidentiality.

The journal operates a single-anonymized peer-review process. The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

Resources and Advice

  • Be constructive: Your goal is to help authors improve their work. Frame your comments as suggestions rather than merely as criticisms.

  • Be specific: Where you identify a weakness, propose a way to address it.

  • Maintain a collegial tone: Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Focus on the science.

  • Keep the editor informed: If you require additional time, or if concerns arise during the review that the editor should be aware of, please contact the editorial office as soon as possible.

Ethical Responsibilities

  • Originality: Alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and previously published work, including your own.

  • Data Integrity: Raise any concerns about data fabrication, image manipulation, or inappropriate data presentation.

  • Concurrent Submission: Inform the editor if you are aware that the manuscript is under consideration elsewhere.

Use of Generative AI

Reviewers may use generative AI tools (e.g., large language models) to assist in polishing or rephrasing their review text. However, reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the originality, accuracy, and final content of their review report. The critical assessment and intellectual judgment required for peer review must be the reviewer's own. AI tools must not be used to generate scientific assessments or to draft substantial portions of the review. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of them into public or open AI models, as this would violate the confidentiality of the review process.