Peer Review Policy

The Critical Patient Journal (RDC) adopts a peer review process as an essential element to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, methodological rigor and credibility of the published works.

Peer review is an independent, impartial, confidential and scientific merit-based process, contributing to the improvement of manuscripts and to the protection of the integrity of the scientific record.

This policy is aligned with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of  the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

 

⮚      Peer Review Model

The RDC adopts the double-blind peer review model, in which:

●        The identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers;

●        The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors;

●        The entire process takes place through the journal's editorial platform.

This model aims to reduce potential biases related to identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, academic prestige or other factors unrelated to the scientific merit of the manuscript.

 

⮚      Initial Editorial Evaluation

After submission, all manuscripts are subject to a preliminary editorial evaluation aimed at verifying, among other aspects:

●        Adequacy to the scope and objectives of the Journal;

●        Compliance with the Instructions for Authors;

●        Compliance with the editorial and ethical policies of the RDC;

●        Minimum scientific and methodological quality;

●        Originality and relevance of the work;

●        Integrity of the submitted documentation.

At this stage, checks may also be made regarding the originality of the manuscript, conflicts of interest, ethical requirements, use of artificial intelligence, authorship and other elements considered necessary.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

 

⮚      Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered eligible for scientific evaluation are sent, as a rule, to two independent reviewers, selected by the Editorial Team based on their scientific competence, professional experience and area of expertise.

Where necessary, a third reviewer may be appointed or additional evaluation requested.

The selection of reviewers seeks to ensure:

●        Adequate technical-scientific competence;

●        Independence from authors;

●        Absence of conflicts of interest;

●        Institutional and geographical diversity;

●        Impartiality and objectivity.

 

⮚      Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are invited to consider, among other aspects:

●        Scientific relevance;

●        Originality;

●        Methodological rigor;

●        Adequacy of the study design;

●        Quality of statistical analysis;

●        Validity and consistency of results;

●        Reasoning of the conclusions;

●        Compliance with ethical principles;

●        Quality of scientific writing;

●        Adequacy of bibliographic references;

●        Interest for clinical practice, research or nursing training in critically ill patients.

Reviews should be objective, reasoned, constructive, respectful, and oriented towards improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

 

⮚      Confidentiality during Review

All manuscripts received for review constitute confidential documents.

Reviewers undertake to:

●        Maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its content;

●        Not to disclose, copy, reproduce or distribute the manuscript or any information contained therein;

●        Not to use data, ideas, methods, results or interpretations obtained during the review for their own benefit or that of third parties;

●        Do not contact the authors directly regarding the submitted manuscript;

●        Communicate exclusively through the editorial platform and the editorial team;

●        Eliminate or destroy copies of manuscripts and other confidential materials after the review is completed, except when their conservation is required by legal obligation or by the journal's policies.

The duty of confidentiality remains even after the conclusion of the editorial process.

 

⮚      Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline the invitation for evaluation whenever there is any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

If a conflict of interest is identified after the review has been accepted, the reviewer must immediately communicate this circumstance to the Editorial Team and stop the review.

Conflicts of interest are managed in accordance with the RDC's Conflicts of Interest Policy.

 

⮚      Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence tools by reviewers is regulated by the Artificial Intelligence Policy in Authorship and Review of the RDC.

Under no circumstances may complete manuscripts, substantial parts of manuscripts, unpublished data, or any confidential information be introduced into artificial intelligence platforms or services that may compromise the confidentiality of the editorial process or the rights of authors.

The responsibility for scientific evaluation remains exclusively human.

 

⮚      Editorial Decision

The reviewers' opinions are advisory in nature and constitute an important element of support for editorial decision-making.

It is the sole responsibility of the Editor in charge or the Editor-in-Chief to decide on:

●        Acceptance;

●        Acceptance conditioned on the making of changes;

●        Need for a new round of review;

●        Rejection of the manuscript.

Where the reviews are substantially divergent, additional evaluation by another independent reviewer may be requested.

 

⮚      Recognition of Reviewers

The RDC recognizes the importance of peer review activity for the quality of scientific publication.

Without prejudice to the confidentiality of the editorial process, the Journal may issue review certificates, publicly acknowledge the collaboration of the reviewers, or adopt other forms of recognition compatible with international best practices.

 

⮚      Review Integrity and Quality

Reviewers must act with independence, objectivity, impartiality, scientific rigor, institutional respect and a high sense of ethical responsibility.

The Editorial Team may not invite reviewers who present opinions that are manifestly inadequate, offensive, discriminatory, insufficiently substantiated, repeatedly delayed or non-compliant with the Journal's editorial policies.

 

⮚      Editorial Commitment

The RDC is committed to ensuring a transparent, fair, confidential, independent peer review process based solely on the scientific merit of manuscripts.

This policy is articulated with the Journal's Authorship and Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Misconduct, Data Protection and Editorial Independence policies, promoting the integrity, transparency and credibility of scholarly communication.