Peer Review Process
Our Dermatology Online uses a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication.
The journal’s peer-review system is designed to provide independent, objective, and constructive assessment of manuscripts while maintaining the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and unpublished research.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to Our Dermatology Online undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.
The editorial assessment considers, among other factors:
- relevance to the journal’s Aims and Scope;
- originality and scientific or clinical relevance;
- general quality of the manuscript;
- appropriateness of the article type;
- compliance with the Instructions for Authors;
- ethical requirements;
- patient confidentiality where applicable;
- potential conflicts of interest;
- obvious problems concerning research or publication integrity.
Manuscripts that are clearly unsuitable for the journal, outside the journal’s scope, or substantially deficient may be rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts requiring administrative, formatting, or technical corrections may be returned to the authors before external peer review.
2. External Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for external assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their relevant scientific or clinical expertise.
External reviewers should not be part of the authorship of the manuscript and should not have a conflict of interest that would compromise the independence of their assessment.
The journal may seek an additional reviewer when:
- reviewer recommendations substantially conflict;
- specialist expertise is required;
- a reviewer is unable to complete the assessment;
- the editor considers an additional independent assessment necessary.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal operates a double-blind peer-review process.
This means that:
- reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
- authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
- reviewer reports are provided to authors without identifying information.
Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a way that does not unnecessarily reveal their identity within the manuscript itself.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript under review.
The journal’s editorial staff may have access to author and reviewer identities as necessary to administer the peer-review process.
4. Reviewer Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
- disclose the manuscript to third parties;
- share manuscript files without permission;
- discuss the manuscript with individuals outside the authorised editorial process;
- use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes;
- disclose their identity to the authors;
- disclose the identity of the authors.
Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are also treated as confidential.
Further requirements are provided in the journal’s Reviewer Instructions.
5. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment.
Potential conflicts may include:
- recent collaboration with an author;
- current or recent institutional affiliation;
- personal relationships;
- direct academic competition;
- financial interests;
- commercial interests;
- other circumstances that could reasonably compromise independence.
A reviewer with a significant conflict of interest may be asked to decline the review.
6. Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to the characteristics appropriate to the article type.
The assessment may include:
- originality;
- scientific or clinical relevance;
- methodological quality;
- validity of data;
- appropriateness of statistical analysis where applicable;
- clarity of presentation;
- adequacy of references;
- validity of conclusions;
- ethical compliance;
- patient confidentiality;
- quality and relevance of figures and tables;
- compliance with relevant reporting guidelines.
Reviewers should provide constructive comments that explain the scientific basis of their recommendations.
7. Case Reports and Case Series
Because Our Dermatology Online publishes clinical case reports and case series, these manuscripts receive particular consideration regarding:
- clinical and educational value;
- originality or relevance;
- adequacy of the clinical history;
- diagnostic assessment;
- differential diagnosis;
- treatment and clinical outcome;
- quality of clinical images;
- patient confidentiality;
- consent for publication where required;
- appropriate ethical considerations;
- discussion in relation to the existing literature.
The journal encourages authors of case reports and case series to follow the CARE reporting guidelines where appropriate.
Reviewers evaluating these manuscripts should follow the journal’s dedicated Case Report Reviewer Guidelines.
8. Human and Animal Research
Manuscripts involving human participants or animals must comply with applicable ethical requirements.
Where applicable, manuscripts should provide information concerning:
- ethics committee or institutional review board approval;
- approval or reference number;
- informed consent;
- animal ethics approval;
- other relevant ethical requirements.
Where formal ethical approval was not required, authors should provide an appropriate statement explaining this where relevant.
Further requirements are described in the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and Patient Consent and Case Reports policy.
9. Patient Consent and Privacy
For case reports, case series, clinical images, and other manuscripts containing potentially identifiable patient information, authors must comply with the journal’s Patient Consent and Case Reports policy.
Where publication consent is required, the manuscript should contain an appropriate statement confirming that consent was obtained.
Reviewers should report concerns about patient identification or inadequate consent confidentially to the handling editor.
Reviewers should not request unnecessary patient-identifying information.
10. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
The journal uses Plagramme as part of its manuscript screening process for text similarity and potential plagiarism.
Similarity screening is an editorial screening tool and does not by itself establish plagiarism or research misconduct.
Potentially significant or suspicious similarities are assessed by the editorial team.
Where a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or substantial inappropriate text reuse, the concern should be communicated confidentially to the editor.
The reviewer should not contact the authors directly regarding suspected misconduct.
11. Artificial Intelligence
The journal has a separate AI Policy governing the use of artificial intelligence and automated tools.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, patient information, figures, or other confidential material to generative AI systems for the purpose of generating a peer-review report.
Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their assessment.
The journal does not use automated AI-detection results as the sole basis for an editorial decision.
Any concern identified through automated screening must be assessed by a human editor.
12. Editorial Decision
Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor makes the editorial decision.
The decision takes into account:
- the scientific and clinical quality of the manuscript;
- the external reviewer reports;
- ethical considerations;
- the manuscript’s relevance to the journal;
- the extent and significance of any required revisions;
- other legitimate editorial considerations.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor is responsible for the final editorial decision.
The editor may request an additional independent review where necessary.
13. Revision
When revisions are requested, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments and indicate clearly how the manuscript has been amended.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, assessed by another independent reviewer.
The editor may make a decision without further external review when the requested changes are minor or when additional peer review is not considered necessary.
14. Timing of Peer Review
The journal aims to maintain an efficient peer-review process.
The expected overall time from submission to initial editorial decision and/or completion of peer review may vary depending on:
- manuscript type;
- reviewer availability;
- complexity of the manuscript;
- need for additional reviewers;
- author response time.
The journal aims, under normal circumstances, to complete the peer-review process within approximately 3–6 weeks when sufficient reviewer availability allows.
This is an expected timeframe and not a guarantee of acceptance or a guaranteed decision time.
If substantial delays occur, the editorial office may inform the authors and, where appropriate, provide an updated estimate.
15. Special Issues
Special issues and manuscripts handled by guest editors are subject to the journal’s normal editorial and peer-review standards.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the editorial integrity of the entire journal, including special issues.
Articles submitted by guest editors or members of the editorial team must be handled independently and subjected to appropriate external peer review.
Guest editors must not make editorial decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.
16. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
When an Editor, Editorial Board member, or other person closely involved with the journal submits a manuscript, the manuscript is handled independently by another qualified editor.
The submitting editor or editorial board member must not participate in the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.
Such manuscripts remain subject to the same external peer-review requirements as other submissions.
17. Exceptions to External Peer Review
Not all material published by the journal necessarily requires the same level of external peer review.
Editorial material such as:
- editorials;
- letters or correspondence where appropriate;
- corrections;
- retractions;
- expressions of concern;
- announcements;
- other non-research editorial content
may be handled through editorial assessment rather than the standard external peer-review process.
Where an article type is subject to a different review procedure, the applicable procedure is determined by the editorial team according to the nature of the content.
Research articles and other scholarly manuscripts requiring external peer review are subject to the journal’s standard peer-review requirements.
18. Appeals
Authors who believe that a significant factual or procedural error affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal’s Complaints and Appeals policy.
Appeals should be submitted to:
An appeal is not a guarantee that the original decision will be changed.
19. Post-Publication Concerns
Concerns relating to the integrity of a published article may be investigated after publication.
Depending on the circumstances, the journal may issue:
- a correction;
- an editorial notice;
- an Expression of Concern;
- a retraction;
- another appropriate post-publication action.
The journal follows its Corrections and Retractions policy when addressing such matters.
20. Reviewer Guidelines
All reviewers should read the journal’s:
Reviewer Instructions
Reviewers evaluating Case Reports, Case Series, or Clinical Images should also consult:
Case Report Reviewer Guidelines
These documents describe reviewer responsibilities, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, patient privacy, research ethics, plagiarism, AI use, and article-specific assessment criteria.
21. Peer-Review Transparency
The journal publishes a List of Reviewers periodically as recognition of individuals who have contributed to the peer-review process.
The publication of the list does not identify which reviewer evaluated any particular manuscript.
Reviewer identities remain confidential in relation to individual manuscripts.
22. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are not influenced by payment for optional services.
The journal may offer optional services such as fast-track processing or author-requested technical corrections in accordance with the published Fees policy.
Payment for an optional service does not guarantee:
- acceptance;
- favourable peer review;
- publication;
- a particular editorial decision.
Contact
Questions concerning the peer-review process may be directed to:
Comments are closed.