Peer Review Policy
Diabzen is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, objectivity, and fairness in the peer review of all manuscript submissions. Our policy is carefully structured around established best practices in the fields of cardiology, diabetology, nephrology, and medical technology.
1. Peer Review Process
● Double-Blind Review: Every manuscript submitted to Diabzen undergoes a double-blind peer review process. This ensures that both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review period, safeguarding objectivity and impartial evaluation.
● Initial Editorial Screening: Upon receipt, submissions are first screened by the editorial office for scope, originality, formatting, and adherence to ethical standards. Manuscripts not meeting these criteria are returned to authors with feedback within one week.
● Assignment to Field Editors: Manuscripts passing initial checks are assigned to associate or field editors with subject expertise. They evaluate the paper for scientific merit, methodological rigor, compliance with ethical standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
● External Peer Review: Suitable manuscripts are forwarded to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research record, and familiarity with the subject. A statistical reviewer may be included when deemed necessary by the editors.
2. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics
● Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and data with strict confidentiality, and disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest prior to accepting assignments.
● Impartiality and Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be objective, fair, and constructive, offering actionable recommendations to improve the manuscript while refraining from unprofessional or derogatory comments.
● Assessment Criteria: Reviewers evaluate:
○ Novelty and originality of research
○ Adequacy of study design and methodology
○ Validity of data and analysis
○ Relevance and impact of findings
○ Ethical considerations, including IRB approval and consent
○ Appropriateness of conclusions and data interpretation
● Timeliness: Reviews are expected to be completed within 30 days of invitation, to ensure rapid yet thorough publication timelines.
3. Editorial Decision
● Editorial Role: Final decisions are made by associate editors and the Editor-in-Chief, considering reviewer feedback and weighing all recommendations. Decisions include: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
● Transparency and Communication: Peer review reports, along with editorial decisions, are communicated to authors. Reviewers may be informed of the final editorial outcome, fostering a culture of learning and continuous improvement.
● Appeal Process: Authors have the right to appeal decisions, which will be reviewed by the editorial board following ethical publishing standards.
4. Integrity and Publication Ethics
● Preventing Misconduct: All reviewers and editors follow COPE and ICMJE guidelines for research integrity, plagiarism, and data transparency.
● Continuous Quality Improvement: Diabzen routinely evaluates its peer review procedures to ensure compliance with international best practices and the evolving needs of interdisciplinary medical research.
This policy ensures all submissions to Diabzen are judged rigorously, fairly, and transparently—upholding the journal’s mission to advance integrated care and technology in the cardio-diabetes-renal field.
