Magnetic Resonance
Magnetic Resonance
Magnetic Resonance

Review criteria

Principal criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor
Scientific impact:
Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution within the scope of Magnetic Resonance? Is the work going to change the approaches used by other groups? Is there a clear advance relative to the current state-of-the-art and, if not self-evident, has the advance been demonstrated?
Scientific quality:
Is all necessary information provided to reproduce the results? Are the results discussed in an appropriate and balanced way (consideration of related work, including appropriate references)? Is reasonable access provided to data, software and material?
Presentation quality:
Are the scientific results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise and well-structured way (number and quality of figures/tables, appropriate use of English language)?

Access review, peer review, and interactive public discussion (MRD)

Manuscripts submitted to MR at first undergo a rapid access review by the editor (initial manuscript evaluation), which is not meant to be a full scientific review but to identify and sort out manuscripts with obvious major deficiencies in view of the above principal evaluation criteria.

Manuscripts rated poor in any of the principal criteria are normally rejected without further review and discussion. Manuscripts rated excellent–fair in all criteria are normally posted on the Magnetic Resonance Discussions (MRD) website, the discussion forum of MR, where they are subject to full peer review and interactive public discussion.

In the full review and interactive discussion, the referees and other interested members of the scientific community are asked to take into account all of the following aspects:

  1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of MR?
  2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? All submitted papers are assumed to report on new observations and/or new theory; there is no need to draw attention to the novelty in title, abstract or conclusions.
  3. Are substantial conclusions reached?
  4. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
  5. Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists with reasonable effort? For example, new pulse programs must be documented graphically and the original files with parameters (not necessarily spectra) provided as supporting information. Hardware developments need to be documented by photos or equivalent drawings (not necessarily by blueprints with precise dimensions). New software must be accompanied by user instructions.
  6. Are numerical data accompanied by error estimates with a description of the methods used to obtain these estimates?
  7. For papers reporting molecular dynamics simulations, is it clearly stated how the MD simulations support the experimental evidence and vice versa?
  8. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
  9. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
  10. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
  11. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
  12. Is the language fluent and precise?
  13. Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
  14. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
  15. Is the amount and quality of the supporting information and supplementary material appropriate?

Peer-review completion (MR)

At the end of the interactive public discussion, the authors may make their final response and submit a revised manuscript. Based on the referee comments, other relevant comments, and the authors' response in the public discussion, the revised manuscript is re-evaluated and rated by the editor. If rated excellent or good in all of the principal criteria and specific aspects listed above, it will normally be accepted for publication in MR. Additional advice from the referees in the evaluation and rating of the revised manuscript will be requested by the editor if the public discussion in MRD is not sufficiently conclusive.