CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY

Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Central Asian Journal of Nephrology (CAJN) follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific validity. All submitted manuscripts undergo rigorous evaluation by independent experts in the field of nephrology and related disciplines.

2. Types of Peer Review

  • Double-blind review: Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities to minimize bias.

  • Editorial review: Initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors for scope, originality, and adherence to journal guidelines.

3. Peer-Review Process

Step 1: Initial Screening

  • The editorial office checks for plagiarism (using tools like iThenticate or Turnitin).

  • Manuscripts are evaluated for formatting, scope, and adherence to submission guidelines.

  • Submissions that fail to meet basic criteria may be desk-rejected without further review.

Step 2: Assignment to Reviewers

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor selects 2-3 independent reviewers (experts in the relevant field).

  • Reviewers are chosen based on their publication record, expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
✔ Originality & Significance – Does the study contribute new knowledge to nephrology?
✔ Methodology – Are the methods scientifically sound and reproducible?
✔ Data Analysis – Are statistical methods appropriate and correctly applied?
✔ Clarity & Structure – Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized?
✔ Ethical Compliance – Does the study follow ethical guidelines (e.g., IRB approval, patient consent)?

Reviewers provide:

  • A recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject).

  • Detailed comments to help authors improve the manuscript.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback.

  • Possible decisions:

    • Accept (no further revisions needed)

    • Minor Revisions (small corrections required)

    • Major Revisions (substantial changes needed before reconsideration)

    • Reject (if the manuscript does not meet quality standards)

Step 5: Revision & Re-Evaluation

  • Authors submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments.

  • The revised version may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation.

Step 6: Final Acceptance & Publication

  • Once all concerns are addressed, the manuscript is accepted for publication.

  • The editorial team performs final checks before online publication.

4. Reviewer Selection Criteria

  • Expertise in nephrology or related fields.

  • Academic background (PhD, MD, or equivalent).

  • Publication record in reputable journals.

  • No conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.

5. Timeframe for Review

  • Initial screening: 1-2 weeks.

  • Peer review: 3-6 weeks (depending on reviewer availability).

  • Revised manuscript evaluation: 2-4 weeks.

6. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain confidentiality (do not share or discuss the manuscript).

  • Provide objective, constructive feedback.

  • Declare conflicts of interest (if any).

  • Avoid personal criticism of authors.

7. Appeals Process

  • Authors may appeal a rejection if they believe there was a significant error in the review process.

  • Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the decision.

  • The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek additional expert opinions.

8. Post-Publication Peer Review

  • Published articles are open to comments and corrections from the scientific community.

  • Errata or retractions are issued if significant errors are identified post-publication.

Contact for Peer-Review Inquiries

For questions regarding the peer-review process, contact:
Editorial Office, Central Asian Journal of Nephrology
Email: [will be soon] | Website: https://www.cajn-journal.org/