Editorial Workflow in the Journal of Nephropathology (JNP)

The 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.

Once 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 submitted manuscript.

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.

If 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 peer-reviewing.

 When the reviewers submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

1. 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 upcoming issues.

2. 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.

3. 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 process.

4. 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 journals.

5. Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of the JNP, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.

If 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 recommendations.

The 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 reviewers.

After the new review stage, according to the reviewer’s recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will take the final decision.

The 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.

 Only the Editor-in-Chief can approve a manuscript for publication, whereas editors recommend manuscripts for acceptance to the Editor-in-Chief.

The 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.