For Editors

01

Accepting or declining a manuscript

An editor takes a manuscript only where they can judge it and where nothing compromises that judgment. Decline, and ask for reassignment, where the subject sits outside your expertise or where you hold a competing interest.

A manuscript in your hands is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review process, or use unpublished material from it in your own work.

02

Screening for scope and minimum requirements

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.

Screening asks four questions:

• Is the kidney among the things the study substantively investigates? The remit and its boundary are on the Aims and Scope page.
• Is the format one the journal publishes, and is it within its limits?
• Are the required declarations present — ethics approval, consent, trial registration, funding, competing interests, data availability?
• Is the manuscript complete and legible enough to be reviewed?

Scope eligibility and evidence quality are separate questions. A study is not screened out because its result is negative, its design is descriptive, its sample is small or its contribution is methodological. Those are matters for review.

03

Selecting reviewers

Choose reviewers for subject expertise against the specific claims of the manuscript, for the absence of a competing interest, and for the range of methods the paper uses — a clinical paper with a complex analysis often needs a methodological reviewer alongside a subject one.

Consider an author’s suggested reviewers on their merits and check them for independence; honor a reasoned request to exclude a reviewer. Avoid reviewers at the authors’ institution, recent co-authors, and anyone in a supervisory relationship with an author.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.

04

Handling a double-blind manuscript

Check the reviewer file before it goes out: names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding text, institution names and document metadata. Where identifying material survives, return the manuscript to the author for a clean version rather than sending it on.

05

Reading the reports

A review is evidence, not a verdict. Weigh each report against the manuscript: a recommendation with reasons that hold carries weight, and one without them carries little, whichever way it points. Where two reports disagree, resolve the disagreement on the science rather than by counting, and seek a third opinion where the disagreement is material and unresolved.

Set aside review comments that impose a requirement the journal does not make — a demand for novelty, for a mechanism, for a clinical endpoint, or for a particular setting or population — and tell the authors which comments they are expected to address.

06

Deciding

Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships and roles. The article processing charge arises only after acceptance and is administered by the editorial office, not by the handling editor.

Write the decision letter so an author can act on it: say what the decision is, which points are essential and which are optional, and what a revision would need to show. Where a manuscript is declined on scope, say so plainly and, where possible, suggest a better-suited venue.

07

Ethics and integrity concerns

Where a manuscript raises a question of ethics approval, consent, authorship, duplicate submission, image manipulation or data integrity, pause the editorial process and refer the matter to the editorial office. Do not resolve it privately with the authors and do not let it ride on the decision.

Concerns are investigated in confidence following COPE guidance, the authors are told what the concern is and given the chance to respond, and the institution is notified where that is the body to investigate. The procedure is on the Editorial Policies page.

08

Using AI tools

The same standard governs editorial handling: a manuscript under consideration is confidential, so it is not pasted into an external service, and any permitted assistance is disclosed. The editorial judgment remains the editor’s.

09

Appeals, complaints and the published record

An appeal against a decision you took is considered by a different editor. Supply the file and the reasoning; do not correspond with the author about the appeal yourself.

After publication, a substantiated error or ethical breach is addressed by a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction, published open access and linked from the article in both directions. The original article stays available and is marked with its status.