The Journal of Nephrology values the critical role of editors in ensuring the quality, integrity, and scientific rigor of the research we publish. Editors serve as key decision-makers in the peer-review process and act as guardians of academic standards. This page provides clear guidelines for editors to facilitate efficient manuscript handling and uphold the highest editorial ethics.

1. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are expected to:

• Ensure timely and fair handling of manuscripts.
• Select qualified and unbiased reviewers with relevant expertise.
• Provide clear, evidence-based recommendations based on reviewer feedback.
• Uphold the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities.
• Ensure that accepted content adheres to the journal’s aims, scope, and ethical standards.

2. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Editors should assess:

• Relevance to the field of nephrology.
• Originality and scientific merit.
• Clarity of research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Ethical compliance, including IRB approval and informed consent where applicable.
• Appropriateness of references and citations.

3. Peer Review Management

• Editors must invite at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.
• Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest with the authors.
• The double-blind peer review process must be strictly followed.
• Editors are responsible for moderating any discrepancies in reviewer comments and providing a final recommendation based on consensus and expert judgment.

4. Decision-Making

Editor decisions should fall into one of the following categories:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Each decision must be supported with a constructive editorial comment to guide the authors. Editors should ensure transparency and consistency in their decisions.

5. Ethical Oversight

Editors must:

• Identify and act on cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or unethical research.
• Report any potential conflicts of interest among authors or reviewers.
• Consult with the Editor-in-Chief in complex or borderline ethical matters.
• Promote integrity and maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward misconduct.

6. Timeliness

Editors should:

• Acknowledge new submissions within 3 business days.
• Assign reviewers and initiate peer review within 7 days.
• Aim to provide an editorial decision within 4–6 weeks of submission.

7. Reviewer Acknowledgment & Quality

Editors are encouraged to:

• Monitor reviewer performance and response times.
• Provide feedback to reviewers when necessary.
• Recognize outstanding reviewer contributions annually.

8. Editorial Board Engagement

Editors are expected to:

• Participate in regular editorial meetings (virtual or in-person).
• Contribute to strategic planning and journal growth.
• Recommend high-quality submissions or special issue proposals.
• Promote the journal within their professional networks.

⚠️ Need Help?

For assistance or questions related to editorial workflow, policy, or manuscript evaluation, please contact: editor.nephrology@sciconxjournals.com