Cell Therapy and Transplantation Reports (CTTR) applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. The journal is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to evaluate their suitability for the journal, compliance with submission requirements, scientific quality, ethical considerations, and alignment with the aims and scope of CTTR. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be declined without external peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are sent to independent reviewers with relevant scientific or clinical expertise. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments.

During the review process, particular attention is given to:

• originality and scientific significance;
• appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
• validity and clarity of the results;
• interpretation of findings and conclusions;
• ethical and reporting standards;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript; and
• relevance to cell therapy, transplantation, regenerative medicine, and related fields.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential. Any reviewer with a potential personal, professional, financial, academic, or institutional conflict of interest should disclose the conflict and decline the review when appropriate.

Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the editorial team evaluates the reviewers’ comments and the manuscript as a whole. Possible editorial decisions may include acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection. The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal’s editorial team.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated editorially, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Reviewer Conduct

CTTR expects reviewers to follow recognized principles of publication ethics, confidentiality, impartiality, and responsible peer review. Suspected ethical concerns or research misconduct identified during review should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office.