《分子生物學(xué)》是一份國(guó)際同行評(píng)議期刊，涵蓋了基因組學(xué)、蛋白質(zhì)組學(xué)、生物信息學(xué)、分子病毒學(xué)與免疫學(xué)、分子發(fā)育生物學(xué)、分子進(jìn)化及相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的分子、細(xì)胞和計(jì)算生物學(xué)的廣泛?jiǎn)栴}。分子生物學(xué)出版評(píng)論、實(shí)驗(yàn)和理論著作。每年，該雜志都會(huì)出版一些專刊，專門報(bào)道發(fā)展最快的物理化學(xué)生物學(xué)分支和最杰出的科學(xué)家。同行評(píng)審《分子生物學(xué)》是一本同行評(píng)議期刊。我們使用雙盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來自9個(gè)國(guó)家(俄羅斯、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、英國(guó)、波蘭、瑞典、瑞士、中國(guó)、澳大利亞)的640多名國(guó)內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員(98%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為30天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為35天。2017年投稿退稿率為72%。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。被邀請(qǐng)的審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應(yīng)以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點(diǎn)，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點(diǎn)來完善稿件。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。評(píng)論者應(yīng)該顯示發(fā)表的一篇評(píng)論(我)任何相關(guān)的工作沒有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒有適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞?(2)任何實(shí)質(zhì)性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發(fā)表或未發(fā)表)的個(gè)人知識(shí)。

Molecular Biology is an international peer reviewed journal that covers a wide scope of problems in molecular, cell and computational biology including genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, molecular virology and immunology, molecular development biology, molecular evolution and related areals. Molecular Biology publishes reviews, experimental and theoretical works. Every year, the journal publishes special issues devoted to most rapidly developing branches of physical-chemical biology and to the most outstanding scientists.PEER REVIEWMolecular Biology is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 640 reviewers, both internal and external (98%), from 9 countries (Russia, USA, Germany, Great Britain, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, China, Australia). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 35 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 72%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.