Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process in Immunopathologia Persa
ImmunopathologiaPersa accepts manuscripts report novel findings, which could result in impacts on biomedical sciences. Quality and topic of submitted manuscript beside the priority of research field are the least considered criteria in each manuscript before entering in formal review process. Any type of submissions containing scientific information necessitates review process to ensure content quality.
Technical editor checks the format and style of manuscript prior to review process to assure its compatibility with Immunopathologia Persa’s guidelines for authors. Checking compatibility continues in whole of the review process and publication. In cases when the authors have not considered the guidelines, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for compatibility. Each submitted manuscript will be considered by the editor-in-chief or one of associate editors in the editorial board. If it meets the minimum criteria to be included in review process, one of the editors (topic expert) selects at least two external reviewers for detailed evaluation process. Selection of reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Reviewers promise to undertake the confidentiality of materials previous to ePublication. In the review process of Immunopathologia Persa, reviewers stay anonymous, but authors’ names are declared to reviewers. Also, authors could suggest reviewers for their manuscript.
Editor receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with decision letter to corresponding author. Final decision on each manuscript will be made by the assigned editor of the manuscript. As Immunopathologia Persa is a rapid response journal, so this process takes not more than three weeks. Decision letter determines the status of manuscript in five ways: 1. Acceptance: the manuscript could be ePublished. This process lasts two weeks. Before ePublication, corresponding author could verify a proof copy of the paper. After ePublication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of Immunopathologia Persa upcoming issues.
2. Minor revises: authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, at which point the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy utilizing Track Changes in Review menu of Microsoft Word Documents. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Unless, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
3. Major revises: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus on their highlighted points. Editor may/may not request the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript beside cover letter and a marked copy. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
4. Reject: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other journals.
5. Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of Immunopathologia Persa, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.
Immunopathologia Persa may invite prominent experts to submit editorials or review papers in special topics, which will be reviewed by editors only. Also commentaries may pass the same way in review process.
In cases that concerns arise during review process about statistical test, methodology or techniques applied in research, editor may request independent internal/external experts to comment before final decisions.
As the final point, we strongly suggest authors to observe research and publication ethics in their manuscript, as reporting of any unethical issue during steps of review may lead to the rejection of the work by Immunopathologia Persa. Also, the authors should consider that they are in the charge of all materials (scientific and ethical) that they provide in their articles.
All of editors and reviewers of Immunopathologia Persa do their utmost to keep the quality of disseminated scientific works to ensure the solid impact of papers on biomedical fields. In Immunopathologia Persa, the review process lasts maximum one month
Publication and authorship
- All submitted manuscripts to theImmunopathol Persa are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers and one local reviewer that are experts in the area nephrology, endocrinology and pharmacology.
- The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
- If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed.
- The manuscript acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
- No research can be included in more than one publication.
Authors' responsibilities
- Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- Authors must participate in the peer review process.
- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
- Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
- Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the editors.
Please complete authors’ agreement form provided on the journal website and send through email to the journal
Reviewers' responsibilities
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the editor- in-chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
For more information please look at the checklist for review provided on the journal website.
Editors' responsibilities
- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
- Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
- Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
- Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accept ethical guidelines.
- Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Plagiarism
All articles published by Immunopathol Persa are committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will incur plagiarism sanctions.
Duplicate Submission
Papers that are found to have been published elsewhere, or to be under review elsewhere, will incur duplicate submission/publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published study, or study that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous paper and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work.
Citation Manipulation
Submitted papers that are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s article, or to articles published in a particular journal, will incur citation manipulation sanctions.
Data Fabrication and Falsification
Submitted papers that are found to have either fabricated or falsified experimental results, including the manipulation of images, will incur data fabrication and falsification sanctions.
Improper Author Contribution or Attribution
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the study in the paper and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.
Redundant Publications
Redundant publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles