Peer Review Policy

Overview

The Research Journal of Critical Care Nephrology (RJCCN) operates a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of published research. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on scientific merit, originality, and contribution to the field.

Type of Peer Review 

RJCCN follows a double-blind peer review process, where:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors

This ensures impartial and unbiased evaluation.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor to assess:

  • Scope relevance
  • Basic methodological soundness
  • Compliance with author guidelines
  • Ethical considerations

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Publication record
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

RJCCN maintains a diverse and international reviewer database to ensure balanced evaluation.

Review Process 

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Data accuracy and interpretation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity and organization

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor, based on:

  • Reviewer reports
  • Scientific merit
  • Editorial priorities

In cases of conflicting reviews, additional reviewers may be consulted.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision decisions must:

  • Submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments

Revised manuscripts may be returned to original reviewers for further evaluation.

Ethical Standards

RJCCN adheres to internationally recognized publishing standards, including:

  • Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

All participants in the review process (authors, reviewers, editors) must:

  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Uphold research integrity

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share or discuss manuscripts with third parties
  • Use unpublished data for personal advantage

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

  • Financial relationships
  • Institutional affiliations
  • Personal relationships with authors

If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the assignment.

When authors are members of the editorial board or team of RJCCN, they are excluded from the editorial and peer-review process of their own manuscripts. Such submissions are handled independently by another editor with no conflict of interest.

RJCCN follows transparent editorial practices to ensure that editorial board membership does not influence editorial decisions.

Timelines

RJCCN aims to ensure timely processing:

  • Initial editorial decision: within 1–2 weeks
  • Reviewer Decision for Reviewing: within 1 week
  • Peer review process: typically 3 Weeks
  • Final decision after revision: within 2–4 weeks

The articles will then be reviewed by at least tow external (peer) reviewers. RJCCN's reviewers are required to declare their conflict of interests and maintain the confidentiality about the manuscripts they review. Reviewers have 1 week to accept or Reject the peer review after receiving the journal email. Otherwise, the editorial office replaced another reviewers for continue peer review. The deadline for reviewers is 3 weeks after acceptance.

Final publication decisions are made by the editor-in-chief or associate editors based on reviewers' recommendations. The editorial board reserve the right to request revisions, reject, or reclassify article types when necessary.

The average time between submission to publication is about 8-10 weeks. 

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, and additional expert opinions may be sought.

Post-Publication Review

RJCCN encourages post-publication discussion and may publish corrections, clarifications, or retractions when necessary, following COPE guidelines.

Continuous Improvement 

The journal regularly reviews and updates its peer review practices to maintain high editorial standards and align with international indexing requirements.

Note

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis submitted as Original Articles are additionally evaluated for adherence to PRISMA guidelines, completeness of the literature search, and appropriateness of evidence synthesis.