《生物化學(xué)》(莫斯科)是一份期刊，包括所有生物化學(xué)領(lǐng)域的研究論文，以及分子生物學(xué)、生物有機(jī)化學(xué)、微生物學(xué)、免疫學(xué)、生理學(xué)和生物醫(yī)學(xué)科學(xué)的生物化學(xué)方面的研究論文。報(bào)道也延伸到生物化學(xué)的新實(shí)驗(yàn)方法，生物化學(xué)重要性的理論貢獻(xiàn)，當(dāng)代生物化學(xué)主題的評(píng)論，和微型評(píng)論(生物化學(xué)新聞)。同行評(píng)審《生物化學(xué)》(莫斯科)是一份同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用單一的盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來自多個(gè)國家(俄羅斯、德國、美國、芬蘭、瑞典、西班牙等)的國內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員100余人(90%)。2017年從提交到首次決定的平均時(shí)間為14-21天。2017年投稿退稿率為71%。所有審稿人的報(bào)告將發(fā)送給負(fù)責(zé)期刊專題的編輯。處理編輯器和協(xié)調(diào)編輯器根據(jù)審稿人的意見做出決策。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)。

Biochemistry (Moscow) is the journal that includes research papers in all fields of biochemistry as well as biochemical aspects of molecular biology, bioorganic chemistry, microbiology, immunology, physiology, and biomedical sciences. Coverage also extends to new experimental methods in biochemistry, theoretical contributions of biochemical importance, reviews of contemporary biochemical topics, and mini-reviews (News in Biochemistry).PEER REVIEWBiochemistry (Moscow) is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 100 reviewers, both internal and external (90%), from many countries (Russia, Germany, USA, Finland, Sweden, Spain, and etc.). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 14-21 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 71%. All referees’ reports are sent to the Handling Editor responsible to the specific section of the journal topics. The decision is made by the Handling Editor and the Coordinate Editor on the basis of reviewers’ comments.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.