Workflow in the Journal of Nephropathology (JNP)
following is the editorial workflow that every paper submitted to the
JNP will undergo during the course of the peer-review process.
The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online
manuscript tracking system.
a manuscript is submitted by the corresponding author, all authors
are notified about the submission and the corresponding author can
track the manuscript in his account which is made on the JNP
website. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal inspects the
Editor-in-Chief, also invites, the section editor or one of the
associate editors or co-editors, based on the subject of the
manuscript, to inspect the paper.
they determined that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to
go through the normal review process or if the subject of the
manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the manuscript
will be rejected with no further processing. If the Editor-in-Chief
determined that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and
falls within the scope of the journal, then the manuscript will go to
one of editorial board members based on the subject of the
manuscript, the availability of the editors, and the lack of any
potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. If the
editor declared that the submitted paper is of sufficient quality and
falls within the scope of the JNP, the manuscript will be sent
to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 external reviewers for
the reviewers submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the
following editorial recommendations:
Acceptance: the manuscript could be e-Published. We try to reduce
this process to maximum two weeks. Before e-Publication,
corresponding author can verify a proof copy of the paper. After
e-Publication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of JNP
Minor revision: authors will receive comments upon their manuscript,
in which the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside
cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy
utilizing Track Changes in Review menu of Microsoft Word Documents.
Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision
letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
Major revision: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to
meet the required scientific criteria for another review process.
Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus
on their highlighted points. Editor may/may not request the authors
to resubmit their revised manuscript beside cover letter and a marked
copy. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after
decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission
Reject: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the
main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the
authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other
Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of the JNP,
it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.
the decision is “review again after minor changes or review again
after major changes, the system will automatically notify the
corresponding author about the reviewer’s suggestions and
author/authors will have a period of time to submit the revised form
of the article. After this, the Editor-in-Chief will decide if a new
stage of review is necessary, and if it is the case, he will select 2
the new review stage, according to the reviewer’s recommendations,
the Editor-in-Chief will take the final decision.
editorial workflow gives the Editor-in-Chief the authority to reject
any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of
quality, or incorrectness of its results.
the Editor-in-Chief can approve a manuscript for publication, whereas
editors recommend manuscripts for acceptance to the Editor-in-Chief.
peer-review process is single blinded, i.e., the reviewers know who
the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access
to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.