Peer review process

Journal of Ozone Therapy (JO3T) does a blind peer review process for all papers marked for peer review in the Section Policies.

Editorial and Peer Review Process:

1.- New submissions

Authors must submit a presubmission inquiry before submitting a full paper. Presubmission inquiries allow authors to quickly determine whether their paper is likely broadly suitable for JO3T. Read the guidelines for presubmission inquiries.

Responses are normally provided within 5 calendar days. Suppose the paper is deemed to be within the scope of the journal about content and of adequate quality standard. In that case, the Editor-in-chief will promptly assess the manuscript and will decide if it is likely to meet the requirement of providing a major advance in a particular field and describing a sufficient body of work to support that claim; if so, it will be sent for external blind peer review.

2.- Peer review

All articles, except for Editorials and Proceedings, are externally blindly peer reviewed before a final decision is made about acceptance for publication. Expert reviewers are asked to assess the technical and scientific merits of the work. Where relevant, work presented in a manuscript undergoes a rigorous review of the statistical methods used.

Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Editor-in-chief, a decision letter to the author is drafted.

How are reviewers selected?

We decide on reviewers for a particular manuscript based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations based on our knowledge of a reviewer.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?

Reviewers’ identities are anonymous unless a reviewer indicates otherwise.

3.- Editorial decisions

Several types of decisions are possible. If after peer review a manuscript is considered potentially appropriate for JO3T, a major revision is generally requested. A minor revision is generally requested as a final step before acceptance.

Manuscripts that are rejected generally do not fit the criteria outlined above in terms of originality, importance to the field, cross-disciplinary interest, or sound methodology.

4.- Revisions

Revised manuscripts will be assessed by the Editor-in-chief. Manuscripts that undergo major revision may require re-review or additional statistical review. There is no guarantee of acceptance after major revision.

Read the guidelines for revised manuscripts.

5.- Appeals

There are two major reasons why we consider articles to not be appropriate for publication in JO3T:

    The article is not broadly considered an appropriate topic for the journal, e.g., not a sufficient advance or too specialized. We are often able to identify such papers at the presubmission inquiry stage, although sometimes we need to invite the full paper in before making that judgment. We normally aim to make such decisions quickly and without external advice so that authors can seek publication elsewhere. However, the lack of an adequate level of advance sometimes only becomes clear after we have obtained in-depth reviews.
    The topic of the article is potentially interesting but, through either editorial or peer review, substantial methodological concerns are identified such that even after revision the article is unlikely to be appropriate for JO3T.

If you wish to appeal a decision you should contact the editor who handled the presubmission inquiry or full manuscript, explaining in detail your reasons for the appeal. Please note that editors are not able to prioritize appeals above the initial evaluation of newly submitted manuscripts, but aim to respond within two weeks of receipt to let you know whether or not we can proceed with a formal appeal.

All appeals on full manuscript submissions will be discussed with at least one other staff editor or academic editor. We may or may not seek external advice on the appeal.

We do not consider second appeals.

6.- Accepted Manuscripts

If your manuscript has been acc