The Journal of Clinical Nephrology (JCN) follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research in nephrology. Our peer review policy is designed to maintain the integrity, objectivity, and scientific validity of the research we publish.

Type of Peer Review

JCN employs a double-blind peer review system, where:

• Reviewer Anonymity: Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Author Anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
• Objective Evaluation: This process ensures impartial and unbiased manuscript evaluation.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at JCN follows these steps:

• Initial Screening: The editorial office screens submissions for completeness, formatting, and plagiarism.
• Editorial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for peer review.
• Reviewer Selection: At least two independent reviewers with expertise in nephrology are assigned.
• Double-Blind Review: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on originality, scientific rigor, methodology, ethical compliance, and significance.
• Reviewer Reports: Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations for revision, acceptance, or rejection.
• Editorial Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer feedback.
• Author Revisions: If required, authors submit a revised manuscript addressing reviewer comments.
• Final Acceptance: The editor ensures that all concerns are addressed before publication.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality: Novelty and contribution to nephrology research.
• Scientific Rigor: Methodological soundness, statistical validity, and reproducibility.
• Clarity and Structure: Well-organized, clearly written, and logically presented findings.
• Ethical Standards: Compliance with ethical research practices, including human and animal studies.
• Relevance: Significance to nephrology, kidney diseases, and related medical disciplines.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal. They are expected to:

• Provide objective and constructive feedback.
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest and decline to review if necessary.
• Identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication.
• Ensure a timely review process and communicate any delays to the editorial office.

Editorial Decision Categories

Following peer review, the editorial team may make one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted with no or minor revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes, with no additional review needed.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript needs significant revisions and will undergo further review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

Appeals and Disputes

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection must submit a detailed explanation addressing reviewer concerns. The appeal process includes:

• Review by a senior editorial panel.
• Additional expert review if necessary.
• A final decision that is binding and cannot be appealed further.

Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

The JCN peer review process follows the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical expectations include:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share manuscript details outside the review process.
• Objectivity: Personal criticism is not permitted; reviews must be fair and focused on the research.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any competing interests before accepting a review request.
• Data Integrity: Any suspicion of research misconduct should be reported to the editors.

Turnaround Time for Peer Review

JCN is committed to a timely peer review process. The standard timeline for manuscript evaluation is:

• Initial Editorial Screening: Within 5-7 days of submission.
• Peer Review Process: Completed within 4-6 weeks.
• Revision & Final Decision: Typically within 2-4 weeks after author resubmission.

Expedited review may be available for high-priority or time-sensitive research.

Contact for Peer Review Inquiries

For questions regarding the peer review process, or if you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact the editorial office at assistant-jcn@clinnephrologyjournal.org.