Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Translational Research is committed to publishing high-quality, scientifically rigorous research that advances our understanding of translational medicine, bridging the gap between basic scientific discoveries and their application in clinical settings. Our Peer Review Policy ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and with integrity by experts in the field, contributing to the journal’s goal of fostering high-quality and impactful research.

1. Peer Review Process:

  • Triple-Blind Review: The Journal of Translational Research employs a Triple-blind peer review process where both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous. This helps to eliminate bias in the evaluation process, ensuring that decisions are made based solely on the scientific merit and quality of the manuscript.
  • Initial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening of the manuscript to ensure that it aligns with the journal's scope and meets basic submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without undergoing peer review.
  • Selection of Reviewers: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and knowledge in the relevant area of translational research. We prioritize inviting reviewers who have significant experience in the research topic and are capable of providing constructive feedback. We strive to ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the manuscript.
  • Review Timeline: The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 4 to 6 weeks. However, the timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of reviewers, and the responsiveness of authors. Authors will be notified if additional time is required.
  • Types of Peer Review Decisions:
    • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions or after minor revisions.
    • Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript requires some changes, but it is deemed suitable for publication once the revisions are made.
    • Major Revisions Required: The manuscript needs substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. The revised manuscript will go through further rounds of review.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication, either due to scientific or methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or lack of relevance to the journal's scope.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers:

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct. They are responsible for:

  • Objectivity: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, based on the scientific rigor, novelty, relevance to the field of translational research, and the clarity of the findings.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They should not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the peer review process.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive and actionable feedback to authors, including suggestions for improving the manuscript. Feedback should be respectful, detailed, and focused on enhancing the scientific quality of the work.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative reviewers can be identified.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should recuse themselves from the process. Conflicts of interest may include personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors of the manuscript.
  • Ethical Considerations: If a reviewer suspects any ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or research misconduct), they must report this to the editorial office immediately for further investigation.

3. Responsibilities of Editors:

  • Fair and Impartial Decision Making: Editors must ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific merit, regardless of the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, or reputation. Editors are responsible for making final decisions on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the feedback from reviewers.
  • Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and reviewers’ comments. They must ensure that reviewers' identities remain confidential during the review process.
  • Ethical Oversight: Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts adhere to the highest ethical standards, including compliance with relevant regulations, ethical treatment of human and animal subjects, and proper citation practices.
  • Handling Ethical Violations: If a manuscript is found to involve unethical practices such as plagiarism, data falsification, or unethical research practices. This may include contacting the author for clarification, issuing a retraction if the manuscript has been published, or notifying relevant authorities.

4. Open Peer Review Option:

The Journal of Translational Research offers authors the option to choose open peer review, where the identities of the reviewers are disclosed to the authors after the manuscript is published. This approach promotes transparency and accountability in the peer review process. Authors and reviewers must agree to the open review option before the review process begins.

5. Post-Publication Review:

Appeals: Authors may appeal a decision if they disagree with the editorial decision or review comments. In such cases, authors should submit a formal appeal to the editorial office, outlining the reasons for the appeal. The editorial team will review the appeal and make a final decision.