Journal of Clinical Hepatology adopts a three-step review process based on peer review (preliminary review by an editor, external review by experts, and final review by the Editor-in-Chief). The Editorial Office decides whether to accept the submitted manuscript based on the opinions of peer reviewers, the experts in the relevant field, so as to ensure the academic quality of the Journal. The information of authors and institutions will be deleted before the manuscript is sent for review, as double-blind review is used. The manuscript is processed in the following steps:
Review process
1. Receipt of manuscript: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office will register the manuscript received and send a confirmation of receipt to all the authors to inform them of the manuscript number and the account number for access to the journal website.
2. Preliminary review: The manuscript will be rejected or recommend to be submitted to another journal in the following cases. (1) The manuscript does not fit the aims and scope of the Journal; (2) the manuscript is not innovative and is a duplication of previous work; (3) there have been similar papers with duplicate contents; (4) the manuscript has an unclear idea and is logically confusing and less readable; (5) the overall similarity exceeds 30% in Academic Misconduct Literature Check; (6) the experimental or theoretical research has obvious defects, the data are not detailed, and the tables and figures have obvious errors.
3. External review: The editor will assign the manuscript that has passed the preliminary review to 2-3 experts for peer review. The experts will review the manuscript in terms of its novelty, academic level, and precision. The statistical aspects of the manuscript will be assessed by the editor specializing in statistics in the Editorial Office. In principle, review should be finished within 20 days. A third reviewer will be invited if the first two reviewers have different opinions. The manuscript will be rejected if two reviewers suggest “rejection”.
Note: The peer reviewers selected by the Editorial Office are all the experts in the relevant field, but they are not among the authors or members of the research team and have no interest relationship.
4. Final review by the Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscripts regularly (monthly), and decides whether to accept the manuscripts based on the opinions of the peer reviewers and revisions by the authors. The manuscript will be sent for peer review or revision again if needed.
Review results
1. Revision: The two reviewers both recommend publication after revision.
2. Re-review: The editor makes a decision of revision according to the opinions of the peer reviewers and the regulations of the Journal, and the manuscript needs to be re-reviewed after major revision; the manuscript may be rejected if not meeting the requirements after revision.
3. Rejection: The editor makes a decision of rejection according to the opinions of the reviewers and the regulations of the Journal. The authors can appeal against the editorial decision.
