Scope and Relevance
Manuscripts must align with journal focus and demonstrate field-level value.
Editorial Governance
Editorial Policies
Editorial Policies
Journal of Peptides
Review the governance framework that supports fair decisions, integrity controls, and reliable publication records in JOP.
45%APC Savings
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Policy Foundation
Editorial Policies for Reliable Publication
JOP applies consistent governance standards to protect scientific quality, fairness, and record integrity.
Policy controls span submission intake, peer review, final decision, and post-publication stewardship.
Authors and reviewers are expected to engage within these standards to support reliable dissemination of peptide evidence.
Clear governance improves trust in decisions and consistency across manuscript categories.
Core Policy Domains
How Policy Is Applied During Review
Editorial outcomes are based on documented criteria rather than informal preference patterns.
Integrity Screening
Similarity and consistency checks are used to protect publication reliability.
Ethics and Consent
Applicable studies must report oversight approval and consent governance.
Conflict Transparency
Relevant relationships should be fully declared for fair assessment.
Peer Review Conduct
Reviewer quality, confidentiality, and evidence-based critique are required.
Corrections and Updates
Post-publication actions follow transparent and proportionate pathways.
Decision Communication
How Editorial Outcomes Are Reported
Clear communication is central to policy-compliant editorial practice.
- Decision letters include concise rationale and prioritized revision expectations.
- Major scientific concerns are separated from minor presentation-level updates.
- Appeals are reviewed through evidence-based and documented procedures.
- Revision cycles focus on unresolved validity and policy compliance concerns.
- Final acceptance requires complete ethics, disclosure, and production checks.
- Post-acceptance updates are handled with record integrity priorities.
Consistent decision communication improves author response quality and review efficiency.
Documented rationale supports internal quality calibration and governance transparency.
Post-Publication
Maintaining the Published Record
Publication governance continues after release through corrections and status controls.
When material issues are identified, JOP evaluates corrective actions proportional to evidence impact.
Version clarity helps readers and citing authors interpret the most current record responsibly.
Authors are expected to cooperate with substantiated post-publication inquiries and documentation requests.
Policy objective: preserve trust in published evidence while maintaining fair and transparent process handling.
Submission Planning
Execution Notes for Higher Acceptance Readiness
Use these practical notes to improve clarity, policy alignment, and review efficiency before final upload.
Editorial planning insight: Policy consistency protects fairness across article types and contributor backgrounds. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Author workflow guidance: Early integrity screening preserves reviewer capacity and publication reliability. Teams that apply this step early usually reduce revision friction and protect publication timelines.
Quality acceleration note: Transparent correction pathways maintain trust in the scientific record. The same practice also improves metadata quality and downstream indexing discoverability.
Submission strategy point: Appeal handling should remain evidence-based, documented, and time-bounded. It supports stronger decision transparency and more efficient peer-review communications.
Publication readiness reminder: Conflict disclosures must be managed as active governance inputs. This improves consistency between core manuscript sections and supporting files.
Operational recommendation: For editorial policies planning, document reviewer-response changes against exact manuscript locations; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Reviewer-facing clarity note: For editorial policies planning, confirm metadata fields and author identifiers before production lock; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Production planning guidance: For editorial policies planning, tighten conclusion language so claims remain proportional to data strength; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Editorial planning insight: For editorial policies planning, align title, abstract, and keyword language with the primary evidence claim; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Author workflow guidance: For editorial policies planning, map each major result to a clear methods description and reproducibility note; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Quality acceleration note: For editorial policies planning, separate prespecified analyses from exploratory findings in a traceable way; capture versioning notes where datasets or scripts may change over time. This increases trust for translational and evidence-synthesis readers.
Submit Within Clear Policy Standards
Provide complete ethics, disclosures, and reporting details for efficient editorial evaluation.
Editorial office: [email protected]
