The Journal of Clinical Nephrology (JCN) acknowledges the essential role of peer reviewers in ensuring the accuracy, integrity, and scientific rigor of published research in nephrology, dialysis, renal transplantation, and related fields. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submitted manuscripts by providing objective, constructive, and timely feedback. Their expertise ensures that only high-quality, clinically relevant, and ethically sound research is published.

Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential. The content, data, and findings should not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to anyone outside the editorial process. Reviewers must:

• Ensure that the manuscript remains confidential and is not used for personal research or professional gain.
• Refrain from discussing the manuscript with unauthorized individuals, including colleagues and students.
• Report any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data manipulation, to the editorial office.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviewers must provide a fair and unbiased assessment of manuscripts, ensuring that their evaluations are based on scientific merit rather than personal or professional biases. They should:

• Critically evaluate the study design, methodology, data interpretation, and validity of research findings.
• Avoid making personal criticisms of the authors and focus on providing constructive feedback.
• Maintain professional integrity and adhere to the highest standards of peer review ethics.

3. Constructive and Detailed Feedback

Reviewers should offer specific, clear, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. An effective review should:

• Identify both strengths and weaknesses in the research methodology, statistical analysis, and conclusions.
• Provide recommendations for improvement, including suggestions for additional data analysis or clearer presentation.
• Ensure that the manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and scientifically sound.
• Recommend appropriate references if additional citations are needed.

4. Timeliness and Commitment

The peer review process relies on timely evaluations. Reviewers should:

• Respond to review invitations promptly and accept assignments only if they can complete them within the given timeframe.
• Inform the editor immediately if they need an extension due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Submit their reviews by the specified deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.

5. Identifying Ethical Issues

Reviewers must be vigilant in detecting ethical concerns and research misconduct, such as:

• Instances of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication.
• Failure to obtain appropriate patient consent or non-compliance with ethical research guidelines.
• Potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed by the authors.

Any ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

6. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial review. They should:

• Decline to review manuscripts where they have personal, financial, or professional conflicts with the authors.
• Refrain from reviewing manuscripts in which they have prior knowledge of unpublished data from the study.
• Notify the editorial office immediately if a conflict of interest arises during the review process.

7. Providing a Final Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, reviewers must provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The possible recommendations include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific, ethical, and quality standards and is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications before acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need substantial revisions before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication criteria or has major flaws that cannot be rectified.

8. Commitment to Scientific Integrity

Reviewers contribute to the advancement of nephrology by upholding the highest ethical and scientific standards. They must:

• Ensure that all manuscripts meet scientific validity and ethical research guidelines.
• Encourage research that advances medical knowledge, promotes innovation, and benefits patient care.
• Uphold the journal’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and excellence in scientific publishing.

The JCN sincerely appreciates the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining the journal’s quality and credibility. For any inquiries regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.