Review Process

StemJournal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of conduct for editors and reviewers. Our guidelines should be read in conjunction with this broader guidance. All studies must be conducted to a high ethical standard and must adhere to local regulations and standards for gaining scrutiny and approval.

StemJournal operates a rigorous, timely, single-blinded peer review process (double-blind on request). After automatic plagiarism screening through iThenticate, manuscripts submitted to StemJournal will be assessed for suitability for publication in the journal by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. Manuscripts that are deemed unsuitable may be rejected without peer review. Manuscripts that are deemed suitable for peer review are sent to appropriate anonymous referees (a minimum of two) for confidential review. Referee reports are then assessed by the handling Editor, who will send a decision letter to the author along with the anonymized referee reports. All decision letters are approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

The initial decision will be one of the following: rejection, acceptance without revision, or potentially acceptable after minor or major revisions. Revised manuscripts will then be appraised by the Editor-in-Chief or handling Editor, who may seek the opinion of referees (prior or new) before making a final decision. Once approved this decision is then conveyed to the author along with the referee reports. Once accepted manuscripts are soon published online in the current year's volume.

The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate responsibility for what is published in the journal. Authors may appeal decisions by contacting the Editor-in-Chief (at stemjournal@iospress.com). Authors will be informed in writing of the result of their appeal.

StemJournal publishes the referee reports inclusive with the final article, as supplemental files alongside the article pdf. The referees have to agree with this process before being able to review, and have the option to remain anonymous.
 

Basic Information
We appreciate the time and effort our reviewers put into their critiques and greatly value their expertise. At StemJournal, we only publish a limited number of articles that are submitted, and it is our hope that we fill the slots with papers of the highest quality, novelty, and rigor. We try to obtain a minimum of two reviewers per article and give reviewers two weeks to complete reviews. Decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript is the final responsibility of the Editor.

• Reviews should be constructive and avoid personal comments
• Reviews should be returned within the time period specified. If an extension is required, please inform the Editorial Office at the time of the request (preferably) or as soon as known
• Reviews will be published with an accepted paper only if the reviewer has given permission to do so
• Reviewer identity is anonymous and will not be revealed unless permission is given by the reviewer to publish their review with name included
• Manuscripts under review should not be shared with any colleagues without permission of the Editor
• Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication (online or print) without the authors’ specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are asked to excuse themselves from reviewing a submission if a conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. A reviewer who has a conflict but feels that it does not prevent his or her making a proper judgment must disclose to the Editor the nature of the conflict. If the reviewer has any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), these should be described in confidential comments to the Editor.

Review Assistance
StemJournal encourages reviewers to enlist the assistance of colleagues, postdoctoral fellows, or graduate students in the review of submitted articles. The primary reviewer must independently evaluate the manuscript and agree with the report filed. Conflict of interest and confidentiality apply to both reviewers. To receive appropriate credit, the name of the co-reviewer should be forwarded to the Editorial Office.

IOS Press
Additional information on peer review can be found at the publisher: www.iospress.com/reviewer-guidelines

Role of the Associate Editor in the Review Process

1. After a manuscript has been received it will be assigned to an expert Associate Editor. Associate Editors are asked to excuse themselves from handling a submission if a conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation, if they have collaborated with the authors in the past three years, if they have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or if they have a history of personal differences with the author(s). If no conflict exists, the Associate Editor will invite a list of 4–6 international experts (either from the list provided by the authors, on his or her own, or a combination of the two).
2. Once all reviews are received, the Handling Associate Editor will enter a review/recommendation using Editorial Manager based on the provided reviews and his/her own assessment of the manuscript.
3. Once the Handling Associate Editor has entered a review/recommendation, the final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or Senior Editor.
4. Handling Associate Editors will be identified on accepted manuscripts.