Peer Review Process
The Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology employs a structured, transparent, and rigorous peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of published research.
Submission and Initial Screening
1. Upon submission via the online system (online manuscript system), manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening for adherence to the journal's scope, format guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards.
2. Manuscripts passing initial screening proceed to the formal peer review stage.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts are evaluated using a double-blind review process, meaning reviewers remain anonymous to authors and vice versa.
Each manuscript is assigned to an associate editor based on topic expertise.
The associate editor appoints at least two external expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on specific criteria:
Originality and scientific significance.
Clarity, coherence, and accuracy of the abstract and title.
Clear statement of research objectives and rationale.
Robustness and appropriateness of methodology.
Accuracy, clarity, and presentation of results.
Validity of interpretations and conclusions based on the data.
Adequate referencing of relevant, recent literature.
Appropriate use of language and terminology.
Quality and appropriateness of figures and tables.
Ethical compliance, including informed consent and ethics approval.
Ethical Assessment
Reviewers are responsible for identifying potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate submissions, or unethical research practices.
Manuscripts suspected of ethical issues undergo detailed scrutiny using plagiarism detection tools (e.g., iThenticate).
Reviewers' Feedback and Editorial Decision
Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback and indicate their recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
The assigned editor reviews these evaluations and makes an initial recommendation.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer evaluations and editorial assessment.
Revision Process
Authors receive reviewer comments and editorial decisions, including detailed revision instructions.
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers whenever necessary to confirm that concerns have been adequately addressed.
Divergent Reviewer Opinions and Additional Evaluation
If reviewer opinions differ, the editor evaluates the scientific basis of both reports.
If necessary, the manuscript may be referred to a third independent reviewer or another relevant expert.
In exceptional cases where a third review is not considered necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may determine the next step or make the final decision based on the available reviews and editorial assessment.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewer reports and editorial assessment.
Final Decision and Publication
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final acceptance or rejection decision based on reviewer recommendations, manuscript revisions, and ethical compliance.
Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial checks and proofreading services to ensure language quality and clarity.
By following this peer review process rigorously, the Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology ensures the high-quality, ethical, and impactful publication of research in the field of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes.
