Peer Review Policy

UP Journal of Ophthalmology

1. Objective:

The UP Journal of Ophthalmology is committed to maintaining a rigorous and unbiased peer review process. This policy outlines the principles and procedures for conducting double-blind peer review to ensure the highest standards of quality and integrity in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

2. Confidentiality and Anonymity:

- All manuscripts submitted to the UP Journal of Ophthalmology will undergo a double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers will be kept confidential from each other.

- Authors are required to remove any information from the manuscript that could potentially reveal their identities (e.g., author names, affiliations, acknowledgments) prior to submission.

- Reviewers are instructed not to attempt to ascertain the identity of the authors and to report any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity of the review process.

3. Selection of Reviewers:

- Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, knowledge, and experience in the field of ophthalmology. They should not have any conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript.

- The Editorial Board of the UP Journal of Ophthalmology is responsible for appointing reviewers, taking into consideration their academic qualifications, research experience, and previous contributions to the field.

4. Review Process:

- Reviewers are provided with clear guidelines on how to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodology, and relevance of the manuscript. They are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

- Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within a specified timeframe to ensure timely processing of manuscripts.

5. Author Responses:

- Authors will receive anonymized feedback from the reviewers. They are given the opportunity to address the reviewers' comments and revise their manuscript accordingly.

- Revised manuscripts are subject to re-evaluation by the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

6. Editorial Decision:

- The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editors and Reviewer Coordinator, will make the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers.

7. Appeals:

- Authors who disagree with the decision reached during the review process may submit an appeal, along with a detailed justification. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors.

8. Ethical Considerations:

- The UP Journal of Ophthalmology is committed to upholding ethical standards in the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to report any potential conflicts of interest or ethical concerns related to the submitted manuscript.

This Double-Blind Peer Review Policy is designed to uphold the highest standards of quality and integrity in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the UP Journal of Ophthalmology. It reflects our commitment to ensuring a fair and unbiased review process for all authors.