The Journal of Clinical Nephrology (JCN) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality research in nephrology, dialysis, kidney transplantation, and related fields. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity, ethical compliance, and clinical relevance.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to determine their suitability for peer review. This stage ensures that the manuscript:

• Falls within the scope of the journal.
• Meets the required ethical and formatting standards.
• Contains scientifically valid data and appropriate citations.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be rejected or returned to the authors for modification before proceeding to the peer review stage.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Qualified reviewers with expertise in nephrology, renal physiology, dialysis, and transplantation are selected based on their academic credentials and experience. The goal is to ensure that the manuscript is evaluated by specialists in the field.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The JCN follows a double-blind review process, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This ensures an unbiased and objective assessment.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Scientific Rigor: The study should have a strong methodology, appropriate statistical analysis, and reliable results.
• Clinical Relevance: The findings should contribute to advancements in nephrology and be applicable to clinical practice.
• Originality: The manuscript should present novel findings, concepts, or approaches in renal medicine.
• Clarity and Presentation: The study should be well-structured, clearly written, and logically organized.
• Ethical Considerations: The study must comply with ethical guidelines, including informed consent and patient confidentiality (if applicable).

5. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' feedback, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all publication standards and is approved for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before final acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need to be addressed before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality or relevance criteria.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter addressing the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may undergo additional peer review to ensure that all concerns have been appropriately addressed.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript meets all quality and ethical standards, it is accepted for publication. The final version undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofreading before being published online and in print.

8. Post-Publication Review

The JCN encourages post-publication discussions. If readers or researchers identify any inaccuracies, concerns, or ethical issues, they are encouraged to contact the editorial office. Corrections, clarifications, or retractions may be issued based on post-publication evaluations.

9. Ethical Compliance

The journal follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected ethical misconduct, such as data falsification, plagiarism, or patient privacy violations, will be thoroughly investigated.

The JCN is committed to a fair, timely, and transparent peer review process. For any inquiries regarding the review process, please contact the editorial office.