Regenerative Biology is a highly selective journal and holds authors to the highest ethical and scientific reporting standards. Accepted manuscripts will undergo our rigorous and fair peer review process: 1) initial peer review, 2) editorial decision on initial peer reviews, 3) author receipt of review consensus, 4) author rebuttal, 5) review of author rebuttal, 6) revision, 7) acceptance of manuscript, 7) final acceptance, 8) pre-publication processing, and 9) online publication. We strongly encourage authors to submit a presubmission abstract as a rapid method for feedback on whether a manuscript topic would be of interest to the journal. Presubmissions do not preclude submission of a manuscript to other journals and thus provide authors with maximum flexibility. Presubmissions are not a prerequisite, and authors who have prepared a full manuscript should submit them through the online submission system. Presubmission inquiries should not exceed 2 pages and should highlight the salient points of the manuscript and its contributions to the field. Presubmissions should be emailed to email@example.com. Editors will review the presubmission and respond to authors within 1-3 days.
The review process at Regenerative Biology occurs in real time. The time from editorial acceptance to publication is within 60 days. Manuscripts that only require minor revisions – no additional experimental data – will be published more rapidly. However, most manuscripts will require some revisions. All steps in the editorial process are streamlined through the online submission system to ensure rapid publication times. Each online publication will bear a unique digital object identifier (DOI), which serves as an electronic identification tag for indexing and referencing.
In the review consensus, authors’ will receive:
- Changes necessary to meet immediate publication, if merited (including suggestions for removal of commentary or data that do not support claims and/or conclusion)
- Required additional work to maintain claims and/or conclusions
- Optional additional improvements/work needed for a stronger publication
In standard scientific peer review, the reviewer and editor are the absolute arbitrators, and dictate the revisions. We believe that by creating a more effective and constructive peer review process among the editors, reviewers, and authors, the time manuscripts languish during the editorial process can be eliminated. For this reason, we allow authors to submit rebuttals on the review consensus. We encourage authors to suggest appropriate alternate experiments or wording. Senior editors and reviewers will review author rebuttals at their discretion.