Peer Review

Translational Science of Rare Diseases is a peer-reviewed journal. All articles submitted to the journal undergo a single blind peer review process. This means that the identity of the authors is known with the reviewers but the identity of the reviewers is not communicated to the authors. Please visit our reviewer guidelines for further information about how to conduct a review.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editors-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to rigorous peer-review by independent, anonymous expert referees. Reasons to reject a paper in the pre-screening process could for example be because the work does not fall within the aims and scope, the writing is of poor quality, the instructions to authors were not followed or the presented work is not novel. Desk rejections are communicated within a few days after submission.

The Editors-in-Chief strive to ensure a typical turnaround time of 3 months from submission until a decision is communicated to the authors.

Reviewers are asked to judge a paper on at least:

• Originality, novelty and significance of results
• Technical quality of work
• Comprehensibility and presentation of the paper
• Overall impression

Based on the received reviews the Editors-in-Chief will make a decision:

• Accept
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Revise and resubmit
• Reject

They mean the following:

1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication and only requires minor polishing; thus, no further reviews are requested.
2. Minor revisions required: The authors are required to make moderate changes to their manuscript. The manuscript becomes acceptable for publication if the changes proposed by the reviewers and editors are successfully addressed. The revised manuscript will be examined by the Editors-in-Chief and possibly sent back to all (or a selection of) reviewers for a second round of reviews. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.
3. Major revisions required: The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. However, a major revision which addresses all issues raised by the reviewers may be acceptable for publication. The revised manuscript will undergo a full second round of review. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission. The article may still be rejected in the revision round.
4. Revise and resubmit: In its current form, the manuscript is not suitable for publication. A resubmission would require substantial revisions and is only encouraged in special cases. The resubmitted manuscript will be considered as a new submission.
5. Reject: The manuscript is rejected as it is deemed to be out of scope, not relevant, or not meeting the journal’s quality standards in terms of significance, novelty, and/or presentation.

Authors are notified by the Editors-in-Chief, whose decision is final.

In-house submissions are subjected to the peer review process described above. Co-authors who are also members of the Editorial Board are not involved in any way with the peer review process of articles of their (co-)authorship, and are asked to disclose this information in the section conflict of interest.