Submission Process
To submit your manuscript, registerand login to the submission portal.
The submitting author is responsible for the manuscript during the peer review process. All eligible co-authors should be included in the author list (read the criteria to qualify for authorship) and should read and approve the manuscript before submission.
Accepted File Formats
Manuscripts may be submitted in .doc or .docx format. Convert manuscripts into a single file before submission. When preparing manuscripts in Microsoft Word, insert your figures and graphics in the main text after the paragraph of their first citation. Supplementary files may be in any format, but we recommend that you use common, nonproprietary formats where possible.
Free Format Submission
Biology and Molecular Medicine does not have strict formatting requirements, but all manuscripts must include the following:
Manuscript Life Cycle:
Editor Approval
Once submitted, a manuscript is reviewed by the Editor in Chief, who will make an initial decision and then oversee all aspects of the editorial process, including peer review, sending out reviewer invitations, coordinating peer review, managing correspondence between reviewers and authors while maintaining dual anonymity, English editing, proofreading, and accepting the final manuscript. Copyediting is performed by technical staff.
After reviewing a manuscript, the Editor in Chief will do one of the following:
- Reject the article for publication
- Reject with encouragement to resubmit pending English revisions
- Reject with encouragement to resubmit pending improvement based on Editor’s critique
- Accept for progression to peer review
After receiving reviewer feedback, authors will be given a date by which any queries should be sorted out and a revised manuscript should be submitted. Extensions for submitting the updated manuscript may be obtained by submitting a request to the editor, who will decide if an extension is appropriate. Extensions are generally granted.
Peer Review
Review is double anonymized.
Suitable Reviewers:
We will invite journal members and other members of the scientific community to serve as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers will ideally have a doctorate, but must at minimum have an undergraduate degree in the sciences and demonstrated prior research experience or publications related to the specific topic of the paper. To ensure anonymity, the Editor must verify that the reviewers and the author are not part of the same institution or currently working on any joint research, business, or other venture together, and are not relatives. Cases in which a reviewer and author are part of the same institutional network (such as a hospital system or partnered universities) will be assessed by the Editor.
- Example 1: The author holds a position at Mount Sinai Hospital while the potential reviewer holds a position at Memorial Sloan Kettering Institute, two distinct institutions. However, the author and potential reviewer are associated with laboratories that are currently participating in a joint research endeavor. This potential reviewer will not be allowed to review.
- Example 2: The author is a faculty member at Hofstra University and the potential reviewer is employed by Lenux Hill Hospital. Lenux Hill Hospital serves as the clinical campus of the Zucker School of Medicine, a program jointly operated by Hofstra University and Northwell Health. The partnership between these institutions would exclude this potential reviewer.
Submissions by Editors:
In cases where the Editor in Chief may have a conflict of interest in assessing and publishing a manuscript, their role will be performed by an Editorial Board member. These included cases where a manuscript was authored, contributed to, or solicited by the Editor, or submitted by someone from their own institution .
Reviewer Feedback:
Reviewers do not interact with each other. Reviewers communicate with authors through rounds of editing in which the authors are provided reviewer feedback and given a specific amount of time to make relevant corrections and improvements to the manuscript. Additionally, the author may make a comment or ask a question regarding a reviewer’s feedback, and the reviewer can choose to respond in a free-form manner, but this is not a requirement. Multiple rounds of feedback and resubmission may take place. If an author fails to complete revisions in a timely manner, the manuscript can be rejected. If the reviewers feel that the authors repeatedly fail to put sufficient effort into revisions, they may contact the Editor, who will decide if the review will continue or the manuscript will be rejected. Additionally, the manuscript may be rejected by the Editor during the review process if reviewers indicate that any change to the manuscript has violated ethical standards of the journal. Manuscripts that fail to pass peer review may be resubmitted as a new submission to the journal, and will be considered.
Extensions
Extensions to deadlines for submitting the updated manuscript may be obtained by submitting a request to the Editor, who will decide if an extension is appropriate.
Availability of Review Material
Reviewer feedback and comments from every round of review will be noted and published in full along with the publication, and reviewer identities will be disclosed. The original submitted manuscript will also be made available. Author questions to reviewers and reviewer responses may be included with author and reviewer opt-in. The editor will be identified.
