Journal of Nephropharmacology
Submissions should conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, available at http://www.icmje.org/.
Unsolicited manuscripts will be reviewed for publication with the following understanding:
1. The paper represents an original work.
2. The paper neither was published already nor is being under review elsewhere.
3. Upon acceptance, the paper may not be published elsewhere without the permission of Journal of Nephropharmacology.
4. The published paper is the sole property of Journal of Nephropharmacology and may be edited before publication.
Journal of Nephropharmacology follows ICMJE's Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as, World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals. Journal of Nephropharmacology is a publication platform to present trajectory of bench to bedside researches. Journal of Nephropharmacology is a publication of Diabetic Nephropathy Prevention.
Manuscripts should be electronically submitted through Online Submission System.
A covering letter must be included when submitting a paper and must state the novelty of the paper.
Journal of Nephropharmacology makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in its publications. However, Journal of Nephropharmacology makes no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the content and disclaim all such representations and warranties whether express or implied to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the authors and are not the Journal of Nephropharmacology views. Journal of Nephropharmacology guaranteed 21-day rapid review process.
Journal of Nephropharmacology publication benefits
Free access to all articles
- Fast and constructive peer review process (14 working days)
- Easy and quick online submission
- Rapid publication
Structure and Preparation of Manuscripts
Types of Articles
Manuscripts should be presented as one of the following formats.
Full Original Researches
A full length original research article (up to ~8000 words, including tables, figures and references) presents novel findings relevant to the aims and scope of the journal.
A full length critical review (up to ~8000 words, including tables, figures and references) provides an abstract and discussion of the relevant literature about any topic covered within the aims and scope of the journal.
Mini Reviews are sharply focused, well-focused, well-documented examinations of timely related issues (up to ~4000 words, including tables, figures and references). The issues may be of a controversial nature, or may address a more narrowly focused area than those typically covered in a review.
Short Communications are preliminary reports (up to ~2000 words, including tables, figures and references).
Commentaries present the author’s considered opinion (up to ~1000 words limited to one figure/table and limited references) on an original article to be published in the journal and usually submitted by the reviewers.
These reports should include introduction, case description, discussion and conclusions. The aspects of renal injury prevention under discussion must be well described and supported by other works with rationale for reporting this particular case. Patient confidentiality must be maintained. Any identifying information must not be published, and any specific details or description that may compromise patient anonymity, should be omitted. The patient’s consent should be obtained when possible.
Letters to Editor
Letter to Editor presents the author’s opinion (up to ~1000 words limited to one figure/table with limited references). If such a letter criticizes an article already published in the journal, then the authors of the original article will be given a chance to respond in the same issue in which the letter is published.
In this section, an interesting photo in the field of nephrology provided a brief description and a few references (up to five).
Epidemiology and prevention
This part is devoted mostly to epidemiology and prevention of treatment in the area of nephrology.
News and views
News and views are devoted mostly to recent findings of treatment in nephrology and renal transplantation, accompanied by the views of the authors.
This type of paper is related to an opinion or a hypothesis on a subject in the area of treatment in nephrology, kidney transplantation and hemodialysis. Hypothesis articles are short manuscripts that present an original hypothesis. The article should set out a clearly identified hypothesis and be supported by adequate references.
- Manuscript should be written in good English (American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these).
- All manuscripts must be typed double spaced, single column, in size 12 font and adequate margins should be left.
- No manuscripts submitted to the journal can exceed 8000 words.
- Submitted manuscripts to the Journal of Nephropharmacology should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Title: A concise and informative title directed at the general reader. Lengthy systematic names and complicated/numerous chemical formulae should therefore be avoided where possible.
Authors’ names: Full names (First, Middle and Last) for all the authors of an article should be given and specified with superscript number(s) for the affiliation(s) [e.g., Mark Junior Smiths]. The name of the corresponding author(s) should be specified with an asterisk after name (e.g., Mark Junior Smiths). Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly.
Affiliation: Affiliation of all the authors should be given and specified with superscripted number before address (e.g., Faculty of …..).
Running title: A very short running title should be given.
Corresponding author: Full address, telephone and fax numbers (with country and area code) and email of the corresponding author(s) should be given.
Abstract: A factual concise abstract (up to 250 words) is required for every manuscript. The abstract should briefly state the Background, Objectives and Patients and Methods (or Materials and Methods for experimental studies) of the research, the Results and Conclusion. An abstract is often presented separately from the article; hence it must be able to stand alone. Referencing should be avoided, but if necessary, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, however, if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.
Key words: Immediately after the abstract, six relevant keywords should be included using American spelling and avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts. (Notice: Readers are increasingly used search engines to find literature using keywords; thus, recognizable and searchable keywords should be given to maximize the visibility of the article.)
Original research papers can also be published in a brief format. Submitted papers that are of interest but are not acceptable as a full-length original contribution are offered by the editor to be published in this section. Also, the authors can primarily submit their papers for consideration of publication in this section. An unstructured abstract not longer than 200 words is required for this section. The body of the manuscript should not exceed 2000 words, and no heading or subheading should be used. Tables and/or Figures should be limited to 2 ones and references to 15 in maximum.
This section should clearly and briefly (up to 600 words) provide an adequate background with relevant references, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results. The last paragraph should address the main objectives of the work.
This section serves as a brief description about the aim of the study
Patients and Methods (Materials and Methods for preclinical investigations)
This section should provide sufficient details to allow the work to be reproduced, with details of supplier (i.e., company’s name, city, country) and catalogue number when appropriate. Methods already published, should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described. The company’s name, city and country of manufacturer of the major equipment should be given. Unexpected hazards encountered during the experimental work should be noted. Any unusual hazards inherent in the use of chemicals, procedures or equipments in the investigation should be clearly identified. In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the author should include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and also state the institutional committee(s) that has approved the experiments. They should also include a statement that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects.
Results should be clear, descriptive and concise. Attention should be paid to the matter of significant figures and tables. The same data should not be presented in more than one figure or in both a figure and a table.
Basically, as a rule, interpretation of the results should be reserved for the discussion section of a full original research article.
The discussion should explore the significance of the results of the work (without repeating them) in comparison with others similar reports. Extensive citations and discussion of published literature should be avoided.
The main question of the work should be very concisely stated and the final conclusions of the study may be presented in a short “Conclusions” section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section(s).
Submit your text in DOC format. Do not embed figures or tables in this document. These should be submitted as separate files.
Tables should be created with a word processor and saved in either DOC or RTF format. Do not embed tables in your text. Tables should be on separate pages and saved as one file in DOC format.
To ensure the highest print quality, the figures must be submitted in either TIF or EPS format according to the following minimum resolutions:
- 1200 dpi (dots per inch) for black and white line art (simple bar graphs, charts, etc.)
- 300 dpi for halftones (black and white photographs)
- 600 dpi for combination halftones (photographs that also contain line art such as labeling or thin lines), figures should be saved as individual files. Vector-based figures (e.g. figures created in Adobe Illustrator) should be submitted in EPS format.
Color figures must be submitted in a CMYK color.
Please see the ethical issue provided in the below link
Every experimental or clinical study may raise controversial ethical issues (e.g., Institutional Ethical Approval for working with animal or human subjects). Thus, Journal of Nephropharmacology expects all authors, reviewers and editors to consider COPE, ICMJE and Equator Network’s reporting guidelines in medical ethics plus scientific writing. If any, authors should state related declaration(s), otherwise the following sentence should be given “None to be declared". Please take a look at the review process in Journal of Nephropharmacology.
The cover letter must include a statement declaring that the study complies with current ethical considerations.
Ethical issues (including plagiarism, misconduct, data fabrication, falsification, double publication or redundancy) must completely considered by the authors.
Authors reporting experimental studies on human subjects must include a statement of assurance in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript reading that: (1) informed consent was obtained from each patient enrolled in the study and (2) the study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a priori approval by the institution's human research committee. In studies involving animal experimentation, provide assurance that all animals received humane care according to the criteria outlined in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH publication 86-23 revised 1985).
Every experimental or clinical study may raise controversial ethical issues (e.g., Institutional Ethical Approval for working with animal or human subjects). Thus, BI expects all authors, reviewers and editors to consider COPE, ICMJE and Equator Network’s reporting guidelines in medical ethics plus scientific writing. If any, authors should state related declaration(s), unless otherwise the following sentence should be given “None to be declared”.
Authors reporting experimental studies on human subjects must include a statement of assurance in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript reading that, the project was done with consideration of ethical issues and obtaining license from the ethics committee of local university/research center and obtaining the written consent of participants. Also, it was done according to ethical standards of human experimentation in accordance to the Helsinki Declaration (www.cirp.org/library/ethics/helsinki).
Authors reporting experimental studies on animal subjects must include a statement of assurance in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript reading that, the project was done with consideration of ethical issues and obtaining license from the ethics committee of local institute. Also, the general care of the experimental animals used for this study was done in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5140&page=114).
In the case of research on human subjects, informed consent and other ethical considerations should be mentioned in the "methods" section of the manuscript. The author should include a statement that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects. As Journal of Nephropharmacology follows ICMJE, please consider their guideline for more information. In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the author should also include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and also state the institutional committee(s) that has approved the experiments. Moreover, the templates can be seen from WHO.
Conflict of Interests
The authors must declare any conflict of interests of contributed authors very briefly in a separate paragraph at the end of the paper. All sources of funding should be declared; unless otherwise the following sentence should be given “Authors declare no conflict of interests”.
To prevent the information on potential conflict of interest for authors from being overlooked or misplaced, mention this information in the cover letter. Authors must identify any potential financial conflicts of interest before the review process begins. Declared conflict of interest will not automatically result in rejection of paper but the editors reserve the right to publish any declared conflict of interest alongside accepted. The following would generally be regarded as potential conflicts of interest:
1. Direct financial payment to an author for the research or manuscript production by the sponsor of a product or service evaluated in an article.
2. Ownership of shares by an author in the company sponsoring a product service evaluated in an article (or in a company sponsoring a competing product).
3. Personal consultant for companies or other organizations with a financial interest in the promotion of particular health care products and services.
Source of Funding
Authors are required to specify the source of funding for their research when submitting a paper. Suppliers of materials should be named and their location (town, state/county, country) included. The information will be disclosed in the Acknowledgements section of the published article.
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper, the corresponding author should study and accept the copyright statement that is available on the journal website.
Authors should acknowledge any scientific, technical, statistical and financial supports. Contributors other than coauthors may be very briefly acknowledged in a separate paragraph at the end of the paper. All sources of funding should be declared.
Implication for health policy makers/practice/research/medical education
This part will be used for better understanding the main message of the article in a simple way. Maximum word count should not be more than 50-120.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all references. These should be numbered sequentially as superscripts in order of their appearance in the text and listed in a separate section following the text, double-spaced. All authors and inclusive page numbers should be limited to published works; unpublished data or personal communications should be indicated parenthetically in the text.
Numbered references should appear at the end of the article and should consist of surnames and initials of all authors when six or less (when seven or more list the first six and add et al). Title of article, name of journal abbreviated according to Index Medicus style, year, volume, first and last page numbers.
Fogo AB. Milk and membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 2; 364(22):2158-9.
Barratt J, Feehally J. Primary IgA nephropathy: new insights into pathogenesis. Semin Nephrol. 2011; 31(4):349-60.
For books, names and initials of all authors, the full title, place of publication, publisher, year of publication, and page number should be given.
Authors should ensure that papers conform to the scientific and style instructions given above. In order to accelerate the publication process the Journal requires that manuscripts be submitted online using online submission facility of the journal.
Journal of Nephropharmacology offer a completely digital submission, review, and production process. At the time of submission of a manuscript, thus, it is advised to prepare production-quality files beforehand to speed up the process. It is advised that authors should follow the given guidelines above, unless otherwise the submission will be returned to the authors for additional revision which may decelerate the manuscript evaluation process and hence delay publication. Thus careful attention is fully appreciated by the editorial members of the journal.
Authors are required to register to create an account for submission at the online submission site. Authors can also follow on-screen instructions and the system will provide the essential guide through the submission process.
After creation of an account, authors are able to exit/re-enter in the account at any stage.
All submissions are kept strictly confidential.
Editorial Workflow in the Journal of Nephropharmacology
The following is the editorial workflow that every paper submitted to the Journal of Nephropharmacology will undergo during the course of the peer-review process. The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online manuscript tracking system. Once a manuscript is submitted by the corresponding author, all authors are notified about the submission and the corresponding author can track the manuscript in his account which is made on the Journal of Nephropharmacology website. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal inspects the submitted manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief, also invites, the section editor or one of the associate editors or co-editors, based on the subject of the manuscript, to inspect the paper.
If they determined that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the manuscript will be rejected with no further processing. If the Editor-in-Chief determined that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, then the manuscript will go to one of editorial board members based on the subject of the manuscript, the availability of the editors, and the lack of any potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. If the editor declared that the submitted paper is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the Journal of Nephropharmacology, the manuscript will be sent to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 external reviewers for peer-reviewing.
When the reviewers submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
1. Acceptance: the manuscript could be e-Published. We try to reduce this process to maximum two weeks. Before e-Publication, corresponding author can verify a proof copy of the paper. After e-Publication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of Journal of Nephropharmacology upcoming issues.
2. Minor revision: authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, in which the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy utilizing Track Changes in Review menu of Microsoft Word Documents. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
3. Major revision: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus on their highlighted points. Editor may/may not request the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript beside cover letter and a marked copy. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
4. Reject: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other journals.
5. Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of the Journal of Nephropharmacology, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.
If the decision is “review again after minor changes or review again after major changes, the system will automatically notify the corresponding author about the reviewer’s suggestions and recommendations.
The author/authors will have a period of time to submit the revised form of the article. After this, the Editor-in-Chief will decide if a new stage of review is necessary, and if it is the case, he will select 2 reviewers.
After the new review stage, according to the reviewer’s recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will take the final decision.
The editorial workflow gives the Editor-in-Chief the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.
Only the Editor-in-Chief can approve a manuscript for publication, whereas editors recommend manuscripts for acceptance to the Editor-in-Chief.
The peer-review process is single blinded, i.e., the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.