For Reviewers

Peer Review Process in Journal of Nephropathology 

Journal of Nephropathology (JNP) accepts manuscripts report novel findings, which could result in impacts on biomedical sciences. Quality and topic of submitted manuscript beside the priority of research field are the least considered criteria in each manuscript before entering in formal review process. Any type of submissions containing scientific information necessitates review process to ensure content quality.

 Technical editor checks the format and style of manuscript prior to review process to assure its compatibility with JNP’s guidelines for authors. Checking compatibility continues in whole of the review process and publication. In cases when the authors have not considered the guidelines, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for compatibility. Each submitted manuscript will be considered by the editor-in-chief or one of associate editors in the editorial board. If it meets the minimum criteria to be included in review process, one of the editors (topic expert) selects at least two external reviewers for detailed evaluation process. Selection of reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Reviewers promise to undertake the confidentiality of materials previous to ePublication. In the review process of JNP, reviewers stay anonymous, but authors’ names are declared to reviewers. Also, authors could suggest reviewers for their manuscript.

Editor receives the reviewers’ comments and send them along with decision letter to corresponding author. Final decision on each manuscript will be made by the assigned editor of the manuscript.

In JNP, we try to have a rapid response to submitted papers; however, all editorial decisions regarding acceptation or rejection will be reached after completion of the review process regardless of specific time. Our decision is mainly based on the comments of peer-review process.

1. Acceptance: The manuscript could be ePublished. Before ePublication, corresponding author could verify a proof copy of the paper. After ePublication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of JNP upcoming issues.

2. Minor revises: Authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, at which point 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.

3. Major revises: 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.

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 JNP, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.

JNP may invite prominent experts to submit editorials or review papers in special topics, which will be reviewed by editors only. Also commentaries may pass the same way in review process.

In cases that concerns arise during review process about statistical test, methodology or techniques applied in research, editor may request independent internal/external experts to comment before final decisions.

As the final point, we strongly suggest authors to observe research and publication ethics in their manuscript, as reporting of any unethical issue during steps of review may lead to the rejection of the work by JNP. Also, the authors should consider that they are in the charge of all materials (scientific and ethical) that they provide in their articles.

All of editors and reviewers of JNP do their utmost to keep the quality of disseminated scientific works to ensure the solid impact of papers on biomedical fields. In summery, in our journal, the editorial decisions will be reached upon conduction of all review processes.

Ethical Issues

Every experimental or clinical study may raise controversial ethical issues (e.g., Institutional Ethical Approval for working with animal or human subjects). Thus, JNP expects all authors, reviewers and editors to consider COPE, ICMJE and Equator Network’s reporting guidelines in medical ethics plus scientific writing. If any, authors should state related declaration(s), unless otherwise the following sentence should be given “None to be declared”.
Please take a look at following guidelines provided by COPE for editors and reviewers that maybe helpful for authors, too:
Flowcharts shows how we behave with unethical papers
          Redundant (duplicate) publication in submitted manuscript and published article
          Suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscript and published article

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 Editorial Freedom at the JNP

The JNP is an international peer-reviewed journal which will publish articles relevant to protection/prevention of renal failure. The JNP adheres to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy on “The Relationship between Journal Editors-in-Chief and Owners [http://www.wame.org/resources/policies# independence]” .More specifically; the Editor-in-Chief has editorial independence and as such has full authority over the journal’s editorial content including how and when information is published. Editorial decisions are based solely on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not on the policies or commercial interests of the owner. The JNP is a publication of the Society of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention. Neither Society of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention nor other organizations interferes in the evaluation, selection or editing of individual articles, either directly or by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are influenced.

Guidelines for Filing a Competing Interest Statement

Definition: Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests. COI in medical publishing affects everyone with a stake in research integrity including journals, research/academic institutions, funding agencies, the popular media, and the public.

COI may exist in numerous forms including financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships, political or religious beliefs, and institutional affiliations. In managing COI, The JNP abides to the policy statement of the WAME. All authors should declare their COI, if any, during the manuscript submission. Reviewers are asked to declare their COI after they accept to review a manuscript. Editors should also declare their COI during handling of a manuscript.

Managing COI depends on disclosure because it is not possible to routinely monitor or investigate whether competing interests are present. COI disclosed by authors will be presented in the Editorial Board and an appropriate action will be taken. Those reviewers and Editors with COI will be excluded from the manuscript process. If competing interests surface from other sources after a manuscript is submitted or published, The JNP investigates allegations of COI and depending on their nature, appropriate actions will be taken if the allegations were found to be true. If a manuscript has been published and COI surfaces later, the journal will publish the results of the investigation as a correction to the article and ask the author to explain, in a published letter, why the COI was not revealed earlier.

 Disposal of Material