Peer Review Policy

The Herald of the National Children's Medical Center applies a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer-review process to safeguard the scientific quality, validity, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of the research it publishes.

Research articles and other substantive scholarly manuscripts within the journal’s scope normally undergo double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

Each manuscript sent for external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Peer-review reports are advisory. The final decision on acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor, who is responsible for ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the overall reliability of the work.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial office may assess:

  • relevance to the journal’s Aims and Scope;
  • suitability for Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health;
  • completeness of the submission and required metadata;
  • compliance with the journal’s Instructions for Authors;
  • scientific structure and minimum methodological adequacy;
  • originality and possible text overlap;
  • authorship and contributorship information;
  • conflicts of interest and funding disclosures;
  • research ethics approval and consent requirements where applicable;
  • clinical trial registration where required;
  • data availability and other relevant declarations;
  • basic quality of language and presentation.

A manuscript may be returned for technical correction or rejected without external peer review if it is clearly outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or ethical requirements, is substantially incomplete, contains serious integrity concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

Rejection at the initial screening stage does not imply that a full external peer review has taken place.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

The journal normally uses a double-anonymous peer-review model.

Authors should prepare manuscripts in a manner that avoids unnecessary disclosure of their identities in the anonymized manuscript file.

The editorial office should take reasonable steps to remove or prevent disclosure of author-identifying information before sending a manuscript to reviewers.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors. If a reviewer becomes aware of an author’s identity, this alone does not automatically invalidate the review, but the reviewer must inform the editor if the knowledge creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The journal cannot guarantee absolute anonymity where authors may be identifiable through preprints, conference presentations, citations, datasets, highly specialized research topics, or other publicly available information.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of appropriate scientific, clinical, methodological, or subject-specific expertise relevant to the manuscript.

When selecting reviewers, editors should consider:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • independence from the authors and their institutions where reasonably possible;
  • absence of significant conflicts of interest;
  • relevant research and publication experience;
  • ability to provide a constructive and evidence-based assessment;
  • previous review quality and reliability, where known;
  • ability to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe.

The journal seeks diversity in its reviewer pool and does not select reviewers on the basis of nationality, gender, institutional prestige, personal relationships, or other irrelevant characteristics.

Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must be sufficiently independent to provide an objective assessment.

A reviewer should decline or disclose a potential conflict where circumstances could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their judgment. Such circumstances may include recent close collaboration, direct competition, personal or financial relationships, institutional dependence, or involvement in the work under review.

The editor determines whether a disclosed relationship prevents the reviewer from participating.

Reviewer recommendations must not be influenced by commercial, institutional, political, personal, or other non-scientific interests.

Detailed obligations are provided in the journal’s Reviewer Policy and Conflicts of Interest and Funding Policy.

Number of Reviewers

Manuscripts undergoing external peer review are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers.

Where the initial reports materially conflict, are insufficiently detailed, or raise unresolved methodological, statistical, clinical, ethical, or other questions, the editor may seek:

  • an additional reviewer;
  • a statistical or methodological reviewer;
  • a specialist reviewer;
  • an independent ethical opinion where necessary.

The number of reviewer reports does not by itself determine the editorial decision. Editors are responsible for assessing the quality and relevance of the reviews rather than simply counting recommendations.

Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript objectively and constructively, including, where relevant:

  • originality and scientific importance;
  • consistency with the journal’s scope;
  • clarity of the research question or objectives;
  • appropriateness of study design and methodology;
  • adequacy of statistical or analytical methods;
  • validity and transparency of results;
  • consistency of conclusions with the evidence presented;
  • adequacy of reporting;
  • relevance and accuracy of references;
  • research ethics and participant protection;
  • clinical trial registration and protocol consistency where applicable;
  • data, image, and research-result integrity;
  • limitations and possible sources of bias.

Reviewers should identify significant concerns clearly and distinguish essential scientific revisions from optional suggestions.

A reviewer must not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications or particular journals unless the references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and information obtained through peer review are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • disclose the manuscript or its contents to unauthorized persons;
  • discuss the work publicly while it is under consideration;
  • use unpublished information, ideas, methods, or data for personal advantage;
  • retain or distribute manuscript files for unauthorized purposes.

ICMJE requires reviewers and editorial personnel to preserve manuscript confidentiality and prohibits appropriation of authors’ unpublished ideas.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their reviews.

Confidential manuscript material must not be uploaded to external generative-AI systems or other tools where confidentiality, data protection, or appropriate authorization cannot be assured.

Where the journal permits particular AI-assisted tools, reviewers must follow the journal’s requirements and disclose substantive use where required.

AI-generated output cannot replace the reviewer’s own expert judgment.

ICMJE states that reviewers must follow the journal’s AI policy, maintain manuscript confidentiality, disclose relevant AI use, and remain responsible for the validity of the review.

Detailed requirements are provided in the journal’s Reviewer Policy and Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may be permitted to suggest qualified potential reviewers during submission.

Suggestions are advisory only. The journal is not obliged to invite any suggested reviewer.

Suggested reviewers should:

  • have appropriate expertise;
  • be independent of the authors;
  • have no relevant conflict of interest;
  • not be selected merely because they are likely to provide a favorable assessment.

Authors must not provide false reviewer identities, fabricated contact information, or email addresses controlled by the authors or their associates.

Editors independently verify and select reviewers where appropriate.

Reviewer Recommendations

After assessment, reviewers may recommend, depending on the journal’s editorial workflow:

  • acceptance;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision;
  • rejection.

These recommendations do not constitute the final editorial decision.

An editor may reach a decision different from an individual reviewer’s recommendation when justified by the scientific evidence, the quality of the reviews, journal policies, ethical considerations, or the opinions of additional reviewers.

Revision

When revision is invited, authors should respond carefully to reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should normally submit:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment was addressed;
  • a reasoned explanation where a suggested change was not made.

Authors are not required to accept a reviewer recommendation that is scientifically incorrect, unethical, irrelevant, or unsupported, but disagreements should be explained respectfully and with appropriate evidence.

A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.

Re-Review

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers when necessary.

Re-review may be particularly appropriate where:

  • major methodological changes were requested;
  • substantial new analyses were added;
  • important concerns remain unresolved;
  • the revised conclusions differ materially from the original submission;
  • additional specialist expertise is required.

For minor revisions, the editor may assess the response without further external review where appropriate.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions may include:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final decision.

Reviewers advise the journal but do not determine publication.

Acceptance requires the editor to be satisfied, to a reasonable editorial standard, that the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements for scientific quality, relevance, integrity, ethics, and reporting.

The owner, publisher, sponsor, funder, advertiser, or other external party must not interfere with individual editorial decisions.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, or other persons closely associated with the journal are not given preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts are subject to the same scientific and ethical requirements and peer-review standards as other submissions.

An editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise has a conflict of interest must have no involvement in reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer identities where this would compromise independence, or the final editorial decision.

The manuscript should be assigned to an appropriately independent editor who can manage the review process without influence from the conflicted individual.

The published article should disclose relevant editorial relationships where appropriate.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

Articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or other specially organized content are subject to the same peer-review, ethical, authorship, conflict-of-interest, and research-integrity standards as regular submissions.

The existence of a Guest Editor does not reduce the journal’s responsibility for the quality and integrity of published content.

Guest Editors must:

  • work within the journal’s established policies;
  • declare relevant conflicts of interest;
  • select qualified and independent reviewers;
  • avoid handling manuscripts where they have conflicts;
  • not guarantee publication to invited authors.

Where a Guest Editor has a conflict of interest, or where a manuscript is authored by the Guest Editor, the paper must be handled independently by another qualified editor.

The Editor-in-Chief retains appropriate oversight and ultimate responsibility for the integrity of special-issue content.

DOAJ specifically requires journals to describe the peer-review process for special issues where applicable, while Web of Science places responsibility for the quality of special-issue content on the publisher and Editorial Board.

Reviewer Misconduct and Manipulation

The journal does not tolerate manipulation of peer review.

Potential misconduct includes:

  • fabricated reviewer identities;
  • false reviewer contact information;
  • undisclosed reviewer conflicts;
  • coercive citation requests;
  • sharing confidential manuscripts without permission;
  • impersonation;
  • coordinated attempts to influence the review process;
  • manipulation of reviewer-suggestion systems;
  • inappropriate interference by authors, editors, reviewers, or third parties.

Suspected manipulation may result in suspension of editorial consideration, rejection, institutional notification, or other action under the journal’s Publication Ethics policies.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe a material error occurred in the assessment or application of journal policy.

An appeal should provide a clear, evidence-based explanation rather than merely express disagreement with the outcome.

An appeal does not automatically lead to re-review or reversal of the decision.

Appeals are handled according to the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy and, where necessary, by an editor who was not materially involved in the disputed decision.

Policy Application

This Peer Review Policy applies consistently to manuscripts regardless of the authors’ institution, nationality, professional status, academic seniority, relationship with the journal, source of funding, or whether the manuscript was invited.

The journal regularly reviews its peer-review procedures to ensure that its publicly stated policy is consistent with actual editorial practice.

ISSN 2181-3353 (Print)
ISSN 2181-3353 (Online)