Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology

Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology

Thursday, 10 / 18 / 2018

Instructions for Reviewers

Model of peer review


JCTH adopts the single blind peer review meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. The academic editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. The peer reviews are not published to public. And the reviews are owned by the authors of the reviews.

Objectives of peer review


The objective of peer review is to provide constructive (and not negative or destructive) criticism of the intellectual content as well as the grammatical presentation of a study. All comments and suggestions are to be provided in a respectful tone, and returned to the JCTH editorial office in a timely manner. Usually 15 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation after a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript. Peer reviewers are also responsible for helping to ensure the ethical integrity of the manuscript under consideration by pointing out any suspected or identified cases of plagiarism, including but not limited to textual issues of plagiarism and redundant (as a whole or in portion) publication of data/findings. Peer reviewers are encouraged to follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guideline (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) and flowchart (https://publicationethics.org/files/What-to-consider-when-asked-to-PR.pdf) when taking peer review works.

JCTH complies to full extent with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor's uniform requirements for manuscripts.

Peer review process


When the editorial office receives a new submission, the manuscript is given an identification number. The editorial staff then performs an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism in both textual and scientific content.

If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to an academic editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design. The academic editor is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty of the paper. After a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript, 15 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation. Upon return of the 2 peer reviews, the academic editor will make a reasoned recommendation for acceptance (full, with minor revisions, or with major revisions) or rejection and provide it to the Editor-in-Chief who makes the editorial decision. The authors then revise the paper, as needed, based on the reviewers’ comments and editorial comments.
After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate. If the paper is accepted, the preparation stage for publication then begins.

Confidentiality


All communications and documents shared between the JCTH and peer reviewers are to be kept strictly confidential and never to be shared with a third party. Peer reviewers agree to not discuss any portion of the manuscripts they are entrusted to review with anyone outside of the JCTH.

The practice of transferring a manuscript that is assigned for peer review to another colleague (including but not limited to graduate students, post docs, and any other trainee or collaborator) for performance of the peer review is considered unethical and strongly discouraged. In the case that a peer reviewer would like to use the assignment as a training opportunity or recognizes the need to consult a colleague with greater expertise in a particular area related to the topic, the reviewer will contact the JCTH editorial office to request prior approval. The request must include the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the proposed colleague(s) along with an explicit declaration of assurance that the requestor (i.e. the reviewer assigned by the JCTH) will act as the principal reviewer and retain sole responsibility for the quality and integrity of the review content.

Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policy


Any COI (financial, professional, personal, or otherwise) must be disclosed to the JCTH editorial office as soon as it is recognized or suspected. Peer reviewers are not penalized for denying a JCTH request for review of a manuscript for which they have a COI that may compromise their ability to make an unbiased assessment. If a potential and/or evidenced COI violation is discovered by JCTH, it will be addressed (including investigation and recusal) on a case-by-case basis.

Major points of content assessment for manuscripts


The Title will be evaluated as a concise and informative description of the major points of the study’s key features.

The Abstract will be evaluated for its clarity and appropriateness in describing the study’s objectives, materials (including patient/subject and control groups and features) and methods (including statistical procedures), results (including summary data obtained by the methods and materials described, as well as measurement and statistical values), and conclusions supported by the results presented and within the scope and limitations of the study design.

The Introduction will be evaluated for its presentation of background information that is not only germane to the study objectives but also representative of the current information in the literature. The study objectives and major features of the study design should be clearly stated.

The Materials and Methods will be evaluated for sufficient and thorough presentation of sample populations/specimens and reagents/equipment as well as all processes (laboratory and/or clinical) that will allow for a reader to replicate the study and validate its findings.

The Results will be evaluated for comprehensive and specific presentation of the data, including all measurement values and results of statistical analyses, obtained by the experimental and observational processes described in the Materials and Methods section. The location of any data that is presented in table or figure format, or as supplementary material, must be cited in the text.

The Discussion will be evaluated for interpretation of the study’s results that are within the scope and limitations of the study design. Speculation on a finding’s implications must be supported by clearly described reasoning supported by references to knowledge in the literature.

Referenced materials will be evaluated for their topical relevance and representation of the most current knowledge in the literature.

Tables and Figures will be evaluated for their ability to communicate a set of data in the most effective, logical and simple manner, with minimal confusion (such as redundancy or over-stylization).

Author appeals


Author may appeal an editorial decision by sending an email to JCTH editorial office. The appeal must contain detailed reasons/responses or rebuttals to the review comments and the editorial comments. The appeal and related material and/or information will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for judgement and for decision on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend acceptance, revision, rejection, or referring to additional peer reviewers. The editorial decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed.

When the editorial office receives a new submission, the manuscript is given an identification number. The editorial staff then performs an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism in both textual and scientific content.

If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to an academic editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design. The academic editor is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty of the paper. After a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript, 15 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation. Upon return of the 2 peer reviews, the academic editor will make a reasoned recommendation for acceptance (full, with minor revisions, or with major revisions) or rejection and provide it to the Editor-in-Chief who makes the editorial decision. The authors then revise the paper, as needed, based on the reviewers’ comments and editorial comments.

After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate. If the paper is accepted, the preparation stage for publication then begins.

 logo

You are here: Home Instructions for Reviewers