Reviewer Guidelines
Peer Review, Publication Standards, and Submission Procedures
Overview: Peer review facilitates the advancement of academic research through several key mechanisms:
Evaluation: Peer review enables journals to identify and publish the highest quality research articles by rigorously assessing their validity and significance.
Integrity: The peer review process upholds the integrity of both the publication process and the scholarly record, ensuring that published work meets rigorous academic standards.
Quality: By filtering manuscripts and providing revision recommendations from recognized experts in the field, peer review enhances the quality of the final publication and offers authors valuable feedback to refine their research.
Types of Peer Review
Single-Anonymized Review: In this approach, the identity of the reviewer is concealed from the author, maintaining reviewer anonymity throughout the process.
Double-Anonymized Review: Both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other, ensuring a high degree of impartiality and reducing potential biases.
Triple-Anonymized Review: This method extends anonymity further by concealing the identities of the authors, reviewers, and the journal’s editor, providing an additional layer of objectivity in the review process.
Open Peer Review: This method involves publishing the review comments alongside the article. The identities of the reviewers may also be disclosed, depending on their preferences, promoting transparency in the review process.
Post-Publication Peer Review: This form of review allows for ongoing evaluation and discussion of the research through an open forum within the scientific community. It is less commonly used and may not be suitable for all research fields.
Criteria for Publication
Judi Clinical Journal requires that scientific papers (Articles) meet the following criteria for publication:
Originality: The paper must present original research, with the principal results and conclusions not previously published or under review elsewhere.
Scientific Significance: The research should be of exceptional scientific importance.
Interdisciplinary Interest: The conclusions should appeal to a broad interdisciplinary audience.
Additional editorial criteria may apply depending on the type of paper.
Decision-Making Process
Judi Clinical journal seeks to publish the most outstanding research across various scientific disciplines, leading to a highly selective process.
The journal does not have a formal editorial board or affiliations with scientific societies or institutions, ensuring decisions are impartial and free from institutional biases. Editors, rather than referees, decide which papers will engage a broad readership. Referees review only a fraction of submitted papers and possess deep expertise in specific fields, while editors have a wider perspective on submissions.
Submission Guidelines
Authors should adhere to the formatting guidelines provided to ensure their manuscript aligns with journal's requirements. Submissions should be made through the online manuscript submission system. Although optional, a cover letter can briefly highlight the significance of the work and its suitability for the journal. The cover letter should not duplicate the abstract or introduction content but can include confidential information such as conflicts of interest or related works.
Post-Submission Process
Upon submission, the editorial team evaluates whether to send the manuscript for peer review. The decision to proceed is based on the novelty, significance, and potential impact of the results. The initial assessment does not reflect the technical validity or field-specific importance.
Editors pay close attention to the manuscript's readability and encourage authors to provide a clear summary and, if applicable, a schematic of the main findings to aid understanding among non-specialists.
Once a manuscript is sent for peer review, the editor selects referees who are independent, qualified, and available within the required timeframe.
Referees' reports ideally include:
The potential interest of the results to relevant audiences.
Identification of any technical shortcomings that need addressing.
Judi Clinical Journal values referees' opinions but retains the final authority on whether the manuscript meets its standards for publication.
Review Guideline
Reviewers are requested to offer constructive feedback on the study by adhering to the following guidelines:
1. Summary and Overview
Provide a concise summary of the manuscript.
2. Introduction and Discussion
Ensure the manuscript highlights its objectives, significance, and originality. Identify any relevant research that has not been cited and confirm whether the manuscript contributes to existing knowledge in the field.
3. Methods
Assess whether the experimental techniques and statistical analyses employed are suitable. Suggest alternative methods or additional experiments if necessary.
Confirm compliance with national or international ethical standards. Verify whether ethical approval was obtained or if patient consent was secured where applicable.
Check for the use of misidentified cell lines, if relevant.
Discuss any limitations associated with the methods used and whether these limitations have been adequately addressed by the authors.
4. Results
Assess the quality and reliability of the data, ensuring the validity of the results and their presentation in figures. Confirm whether the data supports the conclusions drawn by the authors. Ensure results are clearly represented and aligned with the manuscript's overall findings.
5. Citation and References
Confirm that the manuscript appropriately cites and references relevant previous research, ensuring scientific accuracy and credibility.
6. Ethical Compliance
Verify that the manuscript complies with all scientific and ethical guidelines.
7. Data Analysis
Evaluate the quality and rigor of the data analysis, ensuring that the results have been properly interpreted.
8. Language Quality
Assess the overall quality of the manuscript’s language. Determine if linguistic revisions are necessary, and suggest professional editing if needed.
9. Conflict of Interest
Check if the reviewer has any conflicts of interest with the authors. If a conflict exists, that reviewer should not participate in the peer review process.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
The peer review process for Judi Clinical journal is conducted with double-blind confidentiality. Reviewers are expected to objectively assess the research while respecting the authors’ intellectual contributions. Personal criticism is not acceptable. Reviewers must provide detailed explanations and evidence to support their evaluations to facilitate understanding of their feedback.
Reviewers should identify any relevant prior studies not cited in the manuscript and provide appropriate citations for any observations or arguments previously reported. If significant similarities with other published or under-review manuscripts are found, these should be reported to the editor.
Judi Clinical Journal adheres to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Manuscripts must be kept confidential and not shared or discussed with others, except when seeking specific expert advice, in which case the identities of those consulted must be disclosed to the editor. Unpublished information from the manuscript must not be disclosed without the authors' consent.
If a competing interest is identified, reviewers should inform Judi Clinical Journal and, if necessary, decline to review the manuscript.
Interested in becoming a reviewer for the Judi Clinical Journal? If you are not currently on our reviewer panel and would like to be considered, please reach out to the editorial office via email at (email:) for further details.
Reviewer checklist: Reviewers are requested to thoroughly complete the following checklist to assess the quality, clarity, and comprehensiveness of the manuscript in alignment with academic and reporting standards.
1. Are the figures and tables of acceptable quality?
2. Is the case study properly contextualized with adequate reference to relevant literature?
3. Is the following information clearly presented: a) anonymized patient demographics and details; b) primary concerns and symptoms; c) medical, familial, and psychosocial background, including genetic data; d) past interventions and their outcomes?
4. Is the case described with sufficient detail, including all relevant physical examination and clinical findings?
5. Is the diagnostic assessment adequately discussed? Specifically: diagnostic methods, challenges, reasoning, differential diagnosis, and prognosis when applicable.
6. Is the therapeutic intervention described in detail? Specifically: intervention types, administration, and any changes with explanations.
7. Are the Follow-up and Outcomes sections thoroughly discussed? Specifically: clinician and patient outcomes, important diagnostic results, adherence, tolerability, and any adverse or unexpected events.
8. Does the discussion cover all necessary details and address potential concerns about the validity of the findings? Specifically: strengths, limitations, and the relevant medical literature.
9. Is the patient’s perspective provided and discussed?
10. Quality Assessment
Rigor: from 1 to 5
Writing quality: 1 to 5
Overall content quality: 1 to 5
Appeal to a general audience: 1 to 5
Peer Review Process: Eligibility, Speed, and Outcomes
Reviewer Eligibility Criteria
Prospective reviewers for Judi Clinical Journal must fulfill the following criteria:
The reviewer should have authored a minimum of five original research articles. Articles that are pending final publication decisions should also be considered.
Reviewers are expected to conduct at least 1 to 4 reviews annually.
Review Process
Reviewers will receive an invitation to assess a manuscript via email. This invitation will include a proposed review deadline (either 2 or 3 weeks) and login details for the electronic submission system. Reviewers are required to indicate their availability to review the manuscript by logging into the system within 5 days of receiving the email, selecting either “I accept” or “I decline.” If no response is received within this timeframe, the opportunity to review the manuscript will be withdrawn.
Reviewers must complete their evaluation within the timeframe specified in the invitation email. Should unforeseen circumstances arise that hinder the timely completion of the review, reviewers should promptly notify the journal editor to facilitate appropriate arrangements for the review’s completion.
Reviewer Acknowledgment
Judi Clinical Journal acknowledges the contributions of peer reviewers. Reviewers who consent may have their names published alongside the article, while anonymous reviewers are acknowledged collectively. Authors are encouraged to suggest potential independent referees, although final referee selection is at the discretion of the editors.
Review Speed
Judi Clinical Journal strives for rapid decision-making. The initial round of peer review typically takes between 7 and 21 days, depending on the reviewers' response time. Each manuscript is reviewed by multiple anonymous reviewers, whose evaluations and reports are taken into consideration by the editor when determining whether to accept, reject, or request revisions. The editor will then relay the decision and reviewers' feedback to the authors for appropriate action. Revised manuscripts are subsequently returned to the reviewers for further assessment before a final decision is made. Ultimately, the Chief Editor makes the final determination and communicates it to the authors. If there is disagreement among reviewers in the first round, the manuscript will undergo a second round of review by different reviewers.
Decision Outcomes
Judi Clinical Journal typically involves multiple review rounds. The editor's decision letter may offer one of the following options:
Acceptance: The paper is accepted without further changes.
Conditional Acceptance: The paper is accepted in principle pending revisions addressing referees' comments. Further review is usually not required.
Revision Required: The decision is deferred pending additional work. The revised manuscript may undergo further review.
Rejection: The paper is rejected due to significant objections or inadequate substantiation of claims. Authors may be invited to resubmit with substantial revisions or appeal the decision.
Post-Acceptance Process
Judi Clinical journal's subeditors will copyedit the accepted paper for clarity and adherence to house style, ensuring figures, tables, and terminology conform to journals standards. Authors will review the edited text before typesetting and receive an e-proof for final approval. Coordination among co-authors is essential to avoid multiple corrections submissions.