Evaluation of manuscripts
The Colombian Journal of Nephrology evaluates the manuscripts through a “double blind” peer system. This means that the identity of both authors and evaluators is reserved in all the process, so that the evaluation is as independent as possible and that it maintains its academic or scientific approach.
To offer clarity to our authors, below we explain the stages of the evaluation process of the Journal:
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal go through an editorial filter that consists of the following two aspects: 1) review of similarity of the manuscript using an anti-plagiarism system; 2) review of compliance with the minimum submission criteria and of the interest of the topic for the Journal.
If in any of these two aspects, a problem in the manuscript is identified, the Journal will notify the authors either suggesting adjustments or correction or discarding the submission of the manuscript.
Manuscripts that successfully overcome this phase or those that do no present any inconvenience will go to the peer evaluation process.
Selection of peers
Once a manuscript passes the editorial filter, the search or selection of peer evaluators begins. The Journal selects the peers according to a review of the profile of the candidates, in which academic training (mainly peers with doctorate or medical specialty are sought) recent publications, research activity of potential evaluator and their h-index are conjugated.
Reading of manuscripts
The peers who agree to evaluate the manuscript make an in-depth review of its contents in order to establish, in general terms, its scientific rigor (conceptual and methodological aspects, results, etc.) and some aspects related to its presentation and writing.
Emission of concepts
Every time the journal completes an evaluation cycle, with the intervention of two peers for each manuscript (usually), the editor reviews, consolidates and sends the concepts, issuing a verdict on the probable acceptance or rejection. The consolidated concept can suggest slight modifications, deep modifications, approval without modifications or rejection.
The final approval of the manuscript, in the case of the request for corrections, will depend on the verification of the corrected version by the evaluators or on the acceptance by the editor.
The authors will have the possibility of making two rounds of corrections of their manuscript. That is, if corrections are suggested and upon verification, the evaluators or the editor express their dissatisfaction, the authors will have the opportunity to review their manuscript once again. Upon the insistence on part of the evaluators or the editor on the inadequacy of the adjustments, the article may be rejected.
Also, the authors must always send a letter in which they present the adjustments they made, if some of them were not made and what would be their scientific or academic arguments that support the corrected version. No manuscript that has a request for major corrections will be verified if it is not accompanied by the letter of presentation of the adjustments.
Finally, the correction times will be defined according to what the editor suggests and what is agreed with the authors. In any case, the term cannot exceed one quarter; once this deadline expires and if corrections are not delivered, the manuscript will be rejected.
Peer review timeline
The peer review process is complex due to the specialization of some topics and the work overload of many researchers who, in addition, also act as evaluators or editors in several journals. Added to this is that the process is carried out ad honorem. However, the Colombian Journal of Nephrology will work for a rigorous follow-up of all its processes, in order to provide rapid responses to its authors, within a matter of weeks or a few months.
On average, a complete cycle of the peer review of a manuscript will take about a quarter.