Being a Reviewer
Reviewers play a vital role and bear a great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record in the peer review process. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines before undertaking reviews for Cytotherapy and Longevity (CL).
Peer review should ensure rigorous, fair, and constructive evaluation, enabling editors to make informed publication decisions. Review reports must therefore be objective, professional, and supportive, avoiding inappropriate language.
Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to review invitations, particularly if they are unable to accept, to avoid delays in the editorial process. They should accept assignments only where they possess sufficient expertise to provide a thorough assessment.
All manuscripts and related information must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers should not upload unpublished content (including text, data, or images) to public databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality or that may store or reuse the material, including generative AI. The use of artificial intelligence tools, including large language models, to generate peer review reports is not permitted.
Reviewers are responsible for ensuring that any references cited in their reports are accurate and verifiable. If reviewers suspect misconduct, please notify the Editorial Office promptly.
Benefits of Reviewers
To recognize and value reviewers' essential contributions to the quality, rigor, and integrity of the peer review process, the journal will:
- Provide an official reviewer certificate upon request.
- Acknowledge reviewers in the journal's Annual Acknowledgment of Reviewers.
- Consider outstanding reviewers for potential appointment to the Editorial Board based on review quality, timeliness, academic qualifications, and editorial needs.
Peer Review Policy
General Guidelines
Most manuscript types, including Original Articles, Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Guidelines, Perspectives, Opinions, and Short Communications published in CL undergo peer review. Editorials, Corrections, and Letters to the Editor are generally not peer-reviewed, although exceptions may apply.
Typically, at least two independent reviewers from the relevant field are involved. All manuscripts are screened using similarity-detection software during peer review. A similarity index exceeding 20%, excluding references, may result in rejection, even if overlapping content derives from previous work by the authors.
Submissions first undergo a completeness check before editorial evaluation. If the editor has a conflict of interest, another Editorial Board member oversees the review process. Editors consider reviewers' reports but are not obligated to follow recommendations. Authors receive review reports alongside the editorial decision.
The journal operates a double-anonymous peer review system, in which authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other's identities to ensure independent assessment.
1. Initial Quality Check
The editorial office screens all submissions for completeness, compliance with submission requirements, and plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) before editorial assessment.
2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates scientific quality, originality, and relevance. Manuscripts may be rejected, returned for revision before peer review, or assigned to an Associate Editor or Handling Editor for further coordination.
3. Peer Review
The Handling Editor coordinates the peer review process and communicates with authors and reviewers. At least two qualified reviewers provide reports. Major revisions may require reassessment by original reviewers. Failure to adequately address comments may lead to rejection.
Recommendations may include: Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, Request Revision, Reject, Reject but Encourage Resubmission, or invite an additional reviewer. Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.
4. Acceptance and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, figure preparation (if needed), and typesetting. Page proofs are sent electronically to the corresponding author for approval before publication.
Appeals
Authors may submit a formal appeal within one month of receiving a "reject and decline resubmission" decision. Appeals must include the manuscript ID, detailed justification, and supporting documentation.
Appeals are reviewed in accordance with journal policy. If reconsideration is warranted, additional review may be conducted. Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted, and the appeal decision is final.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and supplementary materials as strictly confidential. Content must not be shared, reproduced, or used for purposes other than peer review without explicit permission.
Unpublished manuscripts must not be uploaded to generative AI systems or external platforms that cannot guarantee confidentiality.
If involving a colleague, prior approval from the Editor is required. The invited reviewer remains fully responsible for the integrity and confidentiality of the review.
The editorial office handles reviewer comments, and they may be shared with Editors, authors, and, when necessary, other reviewers as part of the peer review process.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are selected based on expertise and are expected to provide objective and impartial assessments.
The journal maintains a double-anonymous review system: reviewers remain anonymous to authors and are not informed of other reviewers’ identities.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest (e.g., commercial, financial, professional, or personal relationships that may influence judgment) at the time of invitation.