Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Hematology and Clinical Research (JHCR) evaluates submissions on the basis of validity, significance, and originality of the work—never on author identity or affiliation. This principle is clearly stated on the legacy Peer Review Policy page (“judges the validity, significance and originality of the work, rather than who has done it”).
To uphold research integrity, the peer review process interacts closely with the journal’s site-wide policies and practices: similarity screening and plagiarism rules, authorship and withdrawal policies, Crossref/Crossmark updates for post-publication changes, grievance/appeals paths, and open-access licensing and discoverability.
Editorial Workflow (Submission to Decision)
- Submission & Administrative Checks — Corresponding author submits via the journal system and is responsible for communications with the editorial office. Language, file format, and completeness checks occur here.
- Initial Quality Control (QC) — Scope fit, ethics declarations, and similarity screening (iThenticate) are verified. Manuscripts with serious integrity concerns can be rejected at any stage.
- Academic Triage — Handling editor (or Editor-in-Chief) assesses originality, methodological soundness, and fit to hematology/clinical research domains. If out of scope or fatally flawed, the paper may be declined without external review.
- External Peer Review — Typically two independent reviewers with appropriate hematology expertise are invited. Reviews focus on validity, significance, and originality; confidential handling and COI checks apply.
- Decision — Based on reports and editorial assessment: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; Reject (with detailed reasons). See decision table below.
- Revision Cycles — Authors submit point-by-point responses and revised files; editors may consult original or additional reviewers for verification before final decision.
- Post-Acceptance — Production, DOI registration, license display, and publication; Crossmark is used to signal authoritative versions and future updates.
Roles and Responsibilities
| Role | Key Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Editors | Ensure fair evaluation; select qualified, independent reviewers; manage COIs; synthesize reviews; ensure timely decisions; uphold policy compliance and confidentiality. |
| Reviewers | Provide objective, evidence-based critiques; disclose conflicts; treat materials as confidential; avoid using unpublished information for personal gain. |
| Authors | Submit original work; respond to reviewer comments point-by-point; disclose funding and conflicts; follow contributor guidance; accept that the editorial office may reject at any stage for ethical or scientific reasons. |
Confidentiality and Anonymity
All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not share or discuss content outside the review process. Review material may not be used to advance personal research. JHCR’s policy emphasizes process over identity and requires impartial, respectful feedback throughout.
Conflicts of Interest (COI)
Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts—financial interests (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership), personal or professional relationships, or recent collaboration with the authors. Individuals with material conflicts should decline review. Authors must provide comprehensive conflict and funding statements per the contributor guidance.
Evaluation Criteria
- Validity: Study design, methods, and analysis are appropriate for the research question; statistical interpretation is sound.
- Significance: Clinical, translational, or mechanistic relevance to hematology (e.g., transfusion medicine, hemostasis, malignancies, blood disorders).
- Originality: Adds new knowledge or a substantively new synthesis; avoids redundancy and unacknowledged overlap.
- Ethics & Integrity: Clear approvals/consent, data transparency, figure integrity, and citation practices; aligns with plagiarism and ethics policies.
- Clarity: Well-structured presentation with transparent limitations and data availability.
Decision Outcomes
| Decision | Typical Conditions | Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Minor copyedits only; scientific concerns resolved | Production, DOI registration, license placement, online publication; Crossmark enabled. |
| Minor Revision | Clarifications, small edits, additional references | Authors submit a point-by-point response and marked manuscript |
| Major Revision | Substantive methodological or interpretive changes required | Re-review may be sought from original or new reviewers |
| Reject (Resubmit Invited) | Fundamental issues that could be overcome with major rework | Fresh submission after substantial changes; no guarantee of acceptance |
| Reject | Out of scope, irreparable flaws, serious integrity concerns | Authors may appeal via the Grievances/Appeals path with evidence |
Timelines and Communication
JHCR strives for timely decisions and transparent communications. The platform’s navigation and issue structure (“Early Online,” “Current Issue,” “Archive”) reflect continuous publication—review speed and constructive feedback are emphasized across pages and article interfaces.
The corresponding author is the point of contact for all editorial communications and must respond promptly to requests for clarifications, raw data, or permissions.
Integrity Checks and Similarity Screening
At submission, manuscripts undergo similarity screening (e.g., iThenticate) and integrity checks. Editors consider both the extent and location of overlaps, and may request revisions, reject submissions, or escalate ethical concerns. The contributor guidance and plagiarism policy confirm similarity checks and the right to reject at any stage.
Confirmed ethical breaches post-acceptance/post-publication may trigger corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions with persistent, linked notices and DOI metadata updates via Crossref/Crossmark.
Withdrawals During Peer Review
Authors may request withdrawal; however, publisher-approved withdrawals may incur a fee depending on the editorial stage (e.g., after plagiarism check, after peer review, at final proof). See the legacy Withdrawal Policy for detailed tiers. Editorial decisions remain independent of APC or waiver status.
Special Issues and Guest Editors
Special issues follow the same standards and oversight. The Guidelines for Special Issue describe checks by Guest Editors and the Journal Quality Team to ensure academic value, conflict screening, and appropriate reviewer assignment. Decisions (accept, revise, reject) are documented by the Special Issue Editor based on reports.
Guest Editors must declare COIs and follow the journal’s editorial independence and confidentiality rules. Where conflicts arise, the Editor-in-Chief will appoint an alternative handling editor.
Transfers and Journal Fit
Where a submission is sound but a better fit for a sister venue, authors may request transfer during peer review in line with contributor guidance. Editors can advise on scope fit to avoid unnecessary delays and re-review.
Post-Publication Updates (Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions)
When substantial issues arise after publication, JHCR follows the Crossref/Crossmark-aligned process for corrections and retractions. Retractions are reserved for major errors or ethical breaches that undermine confidence in the data or conclusions; authors are typically asked to provide signed agreements for retraction metadata. These practices ensure the authoritative version is clearly signposted to readers and harvesters.
Discoverability and Interoperability
Published articles receive DOIs and are surfaced across the site’s Current/Previous Issue and article pages with links to policy information (Peer Review, Grievances, OA, Archiving). This structure supports harvesting, indexing, and citation linking.
Linkages to Other Public Policies
- Publication Ethics and Malpractice: COPE-aligned commitments underpin editorial conduct and reviewer behavior.
- Plagiarism Policy: Defines unacceptable overlap and actions; interacts with review at QC and revision stages.
- Grievances Policy: Outlines complaint categories and appeals—authorship, bias, delays, and reviewer conduct.
- Withdrawal Policy: Stage-based withdrawal rules/fees; used when authors choose to retract submissions during processing.
- Open Access & Licensing: CC BY 4.0; peer review outcomes are independent of APCs/waivers.
Reviewer Guidance (What to Include)
- Summary: One-paragraph synthesis of aims, methods, and main findings.
- Major comments: Study design, statistics, ethics, data transparency, and figure integrity.
- Minor comments: Clarity, references, terminology, formatting.
- Recommendation: Accept / Minor / Major / Reject with justification.
- Confidential notes to editor: Brief, factual concerns (e.g., suspected overlap) distinct from comments to authors.
Reviews should be evidence-based, respectful, and actionable; they should cite specific lines/figures and, where possible, point to comparable literature.
Author Revisions (Best Practices)
- Provide a point-by-point response mapping each reviewer comment to specific changes (page/line/figure references).
- Upload a tracked-changes manuscript and a clean version.
- Flag new data or analyses clearly and justify additions that affect conclusions.
- Disclose new ethical approvals if added experiments were performed.
FAQs
How many reviewers evaluate a typical submission?
Generally two external reviewers are invited; editors may seek an additional opinion when needed.
Do you use single- or double-anonymized review?
Authors should prepare manuscripts to facilitate anonymized review; editors may adapt anonymization based on article type and feasibility, but decisions never depend on author identity.
What if I disagree with the decision?
Use the Grievances Policy to appeal with a detailed rationale and evidence (e.g., data, permissions, similarity report annotations).
Will inability to pay APCs affect acceptance?
No. Acceptance is independent of APCs; waiver routes exist where appropriate.
Where can I see policy links on articles?
Article pages surface policy links (Peer Review, Grievances, Crossmark, etc.) alongside DOIs and issue navigation.
Contact
Editorial Office – Journal of Hematology and Clinical Research (JHCR)
Heighten Science Publications Inc.
Website: https://www.hematologyresjournal.com/
Email: [email protected]