Reviewer Guidelines for the Journal of Carbohydrates
Reviewers ensure that carbohydrate research is accurate, reproducible, and meaningful. These guidelines help reviewers deliver constructive, ethical evaluations.
Review Objectives
Provide a fair, evidence-based evaluation of scientific quality and relevance.
Reviewers assess novelty, methodological rigor, data integrity, and clarity of interpretation. For carbohydrate research, this includes verification of structural characterization, experimental controls, and analytical methods used to define glycan structures or polysaccharide properties.
Constructive feedback should help authors improve clarity and reproducibility. Focus on evidence, avoid personal remarks, and clearly identify required revisions versus optional improvements.
Scientific Rigor
Evaluate methods, controls, and data transparency.
Clarity
Assess the organization and readability of the manuscript.
Relevance
Confirm alignment with journal scope.
Key Review Criteria
Use the criteria below to provide thorough and consistent evaluations.
Methods
- Appropriate experimental design
- Sufficient detail for replication
- Clear statistical analysis
- Validated instruments and controls
Results
- Data supports conclusions
- Figures and tables are clear
- Limitations are stated
- Comparisons to prior work
Ethics
- Human or animal approvals documented
- Conflict of interest disclosed
- Data availability statement present
- No evidence of misconduct
Impact
- Novel contribution to the field
- Relevance to glycoscience community
- Potential for future applications
- Clear take-home message
Reviewers are encouraged to comment on data completeness and transparency. If data or methods are missing, suggest specific improvements that will strengthen reproducibility.
Tone and Structure of Reviews
Clear, professional feedback improves manuscripts and supports authors.
Structure your review with a short summary, major concerns, and minor comments. Focus on evidence and avoid personal language. When requesting revisions, be specific about the changes needed and explain how they improve the manuscript. If you recommend rejection, provide a clear rationale based on scope, methodological limitations, or insufficient evidence.
Reviewers should also disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews when impartiality cannot be maintained. Confidential comments to the editor should be factual and aligned with the recommendation.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Maintain confidentiality and disclose any conflicts of interest.
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use unpublished data for personal research. If a conflict of interest exists, decline the invitation and notify the editorial office.
Support Rigorous Peer Review
Your expertise helps advance the quality and reliability of carbohydrate research.
