Jundishapur Journal of Physiology

Peer-Review Policy  

Jundishapur Journal of Physiology (JJP) use Double-Blind Peer Review System. Also This journal follows the Cope guidelines for the peer review process.(click here)

At Jundishapur Journal of Physiology (JJP), we are committed to a rigorous and transparent peer review process that upholds the highest standards of scholarly publishing. The peer review system is designed to ensure the integrity, quality, and relevance of the scientific work we publish. Our process typically follows the steps outlined below:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission platform. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all submission requirements are met and that the manuscript has been approved by all co-authors.

2. Editorial Office Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial administrative check by the Editorial Office. This includes verification of compliance with the journal’s formatting and ethical standards as outlined in the Author Guidelines. No assessment of scientific merit is conducted at this stage.

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript to determine its suitability in terms of scope, originality, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic editorial criteria may be rejected without further review.

4. Assignment to an Associate Editor

For manuscripts deemed appropriate for peer review, the Editor-in-Chief assigns an Associate Editor (handling editor) who will manage the review process and serve as the main point of contact during peer review.

5. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers based on their expertise and familiarity with the subject matter. Typically, two reviewers are required; however, this number may vary depending on the manuscript type and editorial needs.

6. Reviewer Responses

Invited reviewers are expected to evaluate their ability to provide an unbiased review based on their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. If they decline, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review Process

Reviewers conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript. This includes multiple readings to assess the scientific validity, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field. Reviewers submit a detailed, structured report along with a recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

The handling editor considers all reviewer reports and formulates a recommendation. In cases of significantly divergent reviewer feedback, an additional reviewer may be consulted. The final decision is made based on a balanced assessment of all input.

9. Communication of Decision

The editorial decision, along with reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author. In single- or double-anonymous peer review models, reviewer identities remain confidential. If the journal follows an open or transparent review policy, reviewer identities may be disclosed.

10. Post-Decision Procedures

• Accepted Manuscripts: Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production phase.
• Revisions Required: Authors are expected to revise the manuscript in response to reviewer comments and provide a point-by-point reply. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation unless minor revisions are involved, in which case the handling editor may conduct the review.
• Reviewer Acknowledgment: Reviewers are notified of the editorial outcome and, where applicable, may be re-invited to review revised submissions.

We at JJP appreciate the time and expertise of our reviewers and editors, and we strive to ensure a constructive, respectful, and timely peer review experience for all participants.