Peer-Review Policy

 The journals of Society of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention perform an exact peer-review process to verify the strength of the study and confirm the scientific precision of the manuscripts. All papers will assign to the editorial review. Independent peer-reviewers with related knowledge on the submitted papers assess the papers to support editors to define the validity of a manuscript for publication in this journal. 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 Journals’ websites. The Editor-in-Chief of each journal inspects the submitted manuscript.

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.

Peer Review Type

The journals of Society of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention  use a double-blind peer review system where the authors do not know who considered their paper.

Peer Review Process

The editorial office conduct an initial assessment on submitted papers to guarantee their accordance with editorial policies, ethical standards and submission guidelines. Therefore, the papers should first be formatted according to the journal’s style.

The submissions are predominantly will be assessed by one of our statisticians who test the papers for the statistical methods. After completion of editorial checks, then the submission is considered by the Editor-in-Chief who determines, the paper directed for peer review through assign to the one of the Associate Editor/ Section Editor/Co-editor, based on the subject of the manuscript, to inspect the paper. The Associate Editor/ Section Editor/Co-editor, leads the peer-review process for papers within their field of working. If they determined that the paper is not of enough value to go toward the standard peer-review process or if the title of the paper is not suitable to the journal scope, the paper will be rejected with no more handling. If the Editor ascertained that the submitted paper is of adequate quality and detected to be within the scope of the journal, then the paper will directed toward one of editorial board members according to the title of the paper, the accessibility of the editors, and the lack of any probable conflicts of interest with the submitting authors for a secondary check of the paper. After assessment, the manuscript will be sent to a minimum of two external reviewers for peer reviewing.  If an Editor, employee, or Editorial Board Member, submits a paper, it is appointed to an independent Editor who will conduct the peer review process, then results of the review process directly assigned to the Editor-in-Chief. 

In our journals, all authors and reviewers will adhere to COPE Core Practices and WAME guidelines to keep all ethics of peer-review, particularly the process of the manuscripts that involves their personal relationship. The Editor-in-Chief will finally receive all peer-review results and will decide to accept or reject the papers. The Editor-in-Chief or any other Editor who is responsible for the initial and final decision  of the papers should release themselves to peer-review or take decisions on the papers that is bring out by authors who affiliated to the same institute/university as of the editor, or if they are a family member or a collaborator. They can therefore suggest somebody else on the editorial board who could offer a neutral opinion on the manuscript.

Peer Reviewers

Authors can also recommend reviewers, who should have a current publication record in the field of the paper and should not be from the same department as the author.

Appeals and Complaints

Any appeal on the assessed papers or any complaint during the peer-review period should be submitted by writing to the Editor-in-Chief. All cases will be conducted according to the COPE guidelines.

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 the journal.
  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 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 Journal, 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 two reviewers.

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

 

Journal of Preventive Epidemiology
Journal of Nephropharmacology
Journal of Nephropathology

 

 

Journals of society of diabetic nephropathy prevention follow the principles and issues of, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

 

Journals of Society of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention , are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Traffic

Today26
This month26
Total108612

Saturday, 01 October 2022 16:53



 

 

 

Healthy eating and diabetes

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Current Date & Time

Saturday, 01 October 2022