The Journal of Clinical Nephrology (JCN) relies on a thorough peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality research in nephrology, dialysis, kidney transplantation, and related fields. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submitted manuscripts by providing constructive feedback while upholding confidentiality and ethical review standards.

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must critically assess manuscripts based on scientific merit, methodology, originality, clarity, and clinical relevance in nephrology.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential and not share or discuss them outside the review process.
• Objective and Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be professional, unbiased, and aimed at improving the manuscript.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their assessments within the specified timeframe and inform the editor if an extension is needed.
• Ethical Considerations: Reviewers must report any concerns regarding research ethics, patient consent, or conflicts of interest.

2. Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

• Scientific Rigor: The study should be methodologically sound, with appropriate study design, statistical analysis, and conclusions supported by the data.
• Clinical Relevance: The research should provide valuable insights applicable to nephrology practice, dialysis, renal physiology, or kidney transplantation.
• Originality and Impact: The manuscript should contribute novel findings or valuable advancements in nephrology research.
• Clarity and Organization: The manuscript should be well-structured, clearly written, and logically organized.
• Reference Support: Cited literature should be relevant, up-to-date, and properly referenced.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure integrity and credibility in the peer review process.

• Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where impartiality may be compromised.
• Reviewer Anonymity: If the journal follows a double-blind review process, reviewers must not reveal their identity to the authors.
• Reporting Ethical Issues: If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, patient privacy violations, or other ethical breaches, they should report these concerns to the editorial office.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

Effective peer reviews should be detailed, constructive, and focused on improving the manuscript. Reviewers should:

• Summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Provide specific, actionable feedback to improve clarity, methodology, and data interpretation.
• Suggest additional references or alternative approaches if necessary.
• Indicate whether the manuscript adheres to ethical and scientific standards.

5. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

JCN values the contributions of its reviewers and acknowledges their efforts through:

• Recognition in the journal’s annual reviewer acknowledgment section.
• Opportunities to join the editorial board for outstanding contributions.
• Certificates of appreciation for completed reviews.

6. Accepting or Declining Review Requests

Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they have expertise in the subject matter and can provide an unbiased evaluation.

• Accepting a Review: Reviewers should confirm their availability and complete the review within the designated timeframe.
• Declining a Review: If unable to complete the review, the reviewer should decline the invitation promptly and may suggest an alternative qualified reviewer.

7. Final Recommendation

After reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all quality and ethical standards for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications but is fundamentally sound.
• Major Revisions: Significant issues need to be addressed before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or has fundamental flaws that cannot be resolved.

By participating in the peer review process for JCN, reviewers agree to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, professionalism, and ethical integrity. For any questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.