Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the field of Nephrology especially Critical Care Nephrology.
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.
Each submission is initially assessed by the Editorial Office for compliance with the journal’s scope and submission requirements. Manuscripts that pass initial screening are reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:
-Scientific validity and methodological rigor
-Originality and clinical relevance
-Ethical standards and reporting quality
-Clarity of presentation
-Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses submitted as Original Articles are additionally evaluated for adherence to PRISMA guidelines, completeness of the literature search, and appropriateness of evidence synthesis.

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.

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.

All reviewers and editors are required to declare potential conflict of interest, and the peer-review process is conducted in accordance with COPE and ICMJE best practices.