Peer-Review Policy
The Journal of Nephropharmacology is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and ethical peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, validity, and integrity of the research it publishes.
Peer Review Type
The Journal of Nephropharmacology uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the peer-review process.
The journal's peer-review process is conducted independently of authors' academic, institutional, geographic, or professional affiliations.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the editorial office to determine whether it is within the scope of the journal and complies with the journal's submission requirements, editorial policies, ethical standards, and basic technical requirements.
Where appropriate, a manuscript may also be evaluated by a statistician or another appropriately qualified expert to assess the suitability and validity of its statistical methods and analyses.
Following the initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further editorial consideration and external peer review.
Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review when they are clearly outside the journal's scope, do not meet the journal's scientific or editorial standards, or have substantial methodological or ethical concerns that preclude further consideration.
Assignment to an Editor
Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to Section Editor or to an Editorial Board Member with relevant subject expertise.
The assigned editor oversees the peer-review process, evaluates the manuscript and reviewer reports, and provides an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
Editors are selected based on their subject expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.
The Executive Editor may assist with the administrative coordination of the editorial and peer-review process when appropriate.
External Peer Review
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise, relevant research experience, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, such suggestions are considered only as recommendations. The selection and invitation of reviewers are conducted by the assigned Section Editor, or by the Editorial Board Member responsible for handling the manuscript. Reviewer selection is based on expertise, suitability, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, scientifically sound, and confidential assessments of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific assessment of the manuscript and are not determined solely by the number or direction of reviewer recommendations. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial Recommendation and Final Decision
After completion of the peer-review process, the assigned editor evaluates the manuscript, considers the external reviewers' reports, and provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
The principal editorial decisions are:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, except where a conflict of interest requires the decision to be made by an independent editor.
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript, together with the external reviewers' assessments and the recommendation of the assigned editor.
Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence
Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity or integrity of the peer-review and editorial decision-making process.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when a conflict of interest exists. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
- a shared institutional affiliation;
- a close personal or family relationship;
- a recent or ongoing research collaboration;
- financial or professional interests; or
- any other circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality.
If a manuscript is submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board Member, or journal staff member, it is assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.
The conflicted editor or staff member has no involvement in the peer-review process or editorial decision concerning the manuscript.
If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript, the manuscript will be handled by an independent editor, and the final editorial decision will be made by an editor who is free from the relevant conflict of interest.
Editors and Editorial Board Members are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other authors. Their manuscripts receive no preferential treatment and are evaluated by independent external reviewers.
Ethical Standards in Peer Review
The Journal of Nephropharmacology follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) concerning peer-review ethics, editorial independence, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and responsible editorial decision-making.
All authors, reviewers, editors, and members of the editorial team are expected to comply with these principles throughout the publication process.
The journal does not tolerate manipulation or inappropriate interference with the peer-review process. Concerns regarding the integrity of peer review are investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable COPE recommendations.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript, or the peer-review process to individuals outside the authorized editorial process.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, academic, or professional advantage.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint concerning the peer-review or editorial process by contacting the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official communication channels.
Appeals should provide a clear and substantive justification for reconsideration of the decision. Appeals and complaints are considered objectively and handled in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and applicable COPE recommendations.
Where appropriate, an appeal may be referred to an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision.
An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
Revision and Re-review
When a manuscript is returned for revision, authors are expected to respond to the reviewers' and editors' comments clearly and systematically and to identify the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
The assigned editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief determines whether further external peer review is required before a final editorial decision is made.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
Withdrawal of Manuscripts
Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before publication by contacting the editorial office and providing an appropriate reason for the request.
The journal may withdraw a manuscript from consideration when serious ethical, legal, authorship, or scientific concerns arise, or when the integrity of the editorial or peer-review process has been compromised.
Retraction and Post-publication Concerns
The Journal of Nephropharmacology follows applicable COPE recommendations concerning corrections, retractions, and post-publication concerns.
A published article may be considered for correction or retraction when there is reliable evidence of a serious problem affecting the validity, integrity, or ethical acceptability of the published work.
Reasons may include, but are not limited to:
- major errors that substantially affect the validity of the findings;
- plagiarism or other forms of significant publication misconduct;
- fabrication or manipulation of data;
- unethical research or failure to obtain required ethical approval;
- redundant or duplicate publication;
- serious undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- authorship or other ethical issues that materially affect the integrity of the publication; or
- a compromised or manipulated peer-review process.
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are handled according to the journal's publication ethics policies and applicable COPE guidance.
See also “Publication Ethics and Policies”