Caring Today respects the principles of publication ethics and follows the rules, policies, and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal also complies with the relevant executive regulations on the prevention of and response to fraud in scientific works. In handling suspected misconduct and retractions, the journal follows COPE guidance. Caring Today is committed to the highest standards of peer review.
Caring Today is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that seeks to align its editorial practices with international publishing standards. Accordingly, the journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which neither authors know the identity of reviewers nor reviewers know the identity of authors. This approach is intended to ensure that evaluation is based solely on scientific merit and is free from prejudice or bias. All submissions, except editorials and letters to the editor, which are assessed by the Editorial Board, undergo double-blind peer review to evaluate the methodological quality and scientific reasoning of the manuscript. Manuscripts approved by the Editor-in-Chief proceed to publication.
By focusing exclusively on manuscript content, double-blind peer review reduces bias and preconception. Peer review improves the quality of scholarly work, helps verify prior research within a subject area, supports the identification of plagiarism, and plays a central role in scientific development. Participation in peer review also helps reviewers stay up to date with recent developments in their field. Manuscripts are usually evaluated by two reviewers selected on the basis of their expertise and experience. Reviewers provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. We recognize that most submitted manuscripts require revision.
Authors are strongly advised to read the Instructions for Authors carefully and in full before submission so that they understand how manuscripts intended for publication should be prepared. Upon receipt of a manuscript, the corresponding author is notified by email and receives a manuscript identification number. This number should be included in the subject line of all subsequent emails and in the names of all files sent to the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board. The manuscript is then sent to at least two reviewers, and a response may be provided within approximately six weeks of receipt. If the manuscript is accepted, the author is asked to prepare a final version in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The manuscript is then sent for editing. After final acceptance, it is transferred to the production and typesetting team for layout and preparation for publication.
After submission, the order of authors in the version submitted for publication may not be changed, nor may authors be added or removed. Following submission, authors should correspond with the Editor-in-Chief only regarding the progress of the peer-review process.
The journal supports and applies double-blind peer review. Research and review articles are initially evaluated anonymously by two Editorial Board members (one Section Editor and one other Editorial Board member), as required. After preliminary evaluation, manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are sent to two external reviewers, typically within approximately 10 days of submission. Other article types are reviewed by two members of the Editorial Board, and an initial response may be provided within 4–6 weeks of submission. The identities of editors and peer reviewers remain unknown to authors and vice versa. This approach is adopted to encourage constructive criticism by editors and reviewers.
All reviewers are selected and invited by the Editorial Board according to the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are asked to complete their evaluations within one month, although an extension may be granted when necessary to complete and submit the review report. Further information for reviewers is available in the journal’s reviewer guidelines and in its Code of Ethics and Publication Ethics.
Editors and peer reviewers are required to acknowledge and follow COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. In particular, they must preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and the authors’ identities while the work remains unpublished; refrain from publicly discussing the manuscript; and respect the authors’ ideas and intellectual property. Manuscripts are evaluated according to specific criteria such as originality, novelty, innovation, scientific merit, and relevance, in accordance with COPE guidance. These criteria are assessed using a standardized evaluation framework available to authors and reviewers. Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject-matter expertise, for example as reflected in their publications. Authors may also suggest reviewers with whom they have no conflict of interest. A submitted manuscript may be accepted with minor or major revisions, or rejected if it does not meet the standards of Caring Today.
Reviewers and Editorial Board members will, as far as reasonably possible, work with authors to support publication of the highest-quality work. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board will respect well-justified and feasible requests from authors asking that a particular Editorial Board member or reviewer not evaluate their submission. When revision is requested before a final acceptance decision, the revised manuscript should be returned within less than one month. If an author is dissatisfied with the decision of the Editorial Board or reviewers, an appeal may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, who will arrange a review of all relevant documentation, including the manuscript, correspondence, and review reports, and will issue a final decision within one month.
After each round of peer review, reviewer(s) may be asked to evaluate the submitted version together with previous peer-review reports. Decisions on all submitted manuscripts are made by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board, ensuring consistency and a high standard in the journal’s decision-making process. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of Caring Today may select one of the following decisions:
· Acceptance: The submitted manuscript is of high quality and is suitable for publication in the journal.
· Revision: Authors are asked to revise their manuscript. After resubmission, the revised manuscript is sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief for evaluation and decision. The Editor-in-Chief may accept the manuscript, request further revision, or reject it. If one reviewer recommends major revision and the second reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer who has not previously evaluated it, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision in light of all three reviews. If both reviewers recommend major revision, the manuscript is returned to the authors. The revised version is then sent for comparative re-review to one of the reviewers who previously evaluated the manuscript.
· Rejection: The manuscript contains major deficiencies that cannot be resolved through revision and resubmission. If two reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript will be rejected.
If the decision is “Revision,” authors are expected to address the comments of the reviewers and Editorial Board. A second round of peer review may be conducted. After final acceptance, authors must format the final manuscript according to the journal template and submit it through the journal system so that it can proceed to the Editorial Board, copyeditor, and production team for publication.
To ensure timely editing and typesetting, each manuscript is normally limited to two rounds of peer review and revision. Authors are therefore asked to address all issues raised by reviewers directly and comprehensively after the first round of review. Depending on the extent of the requested changes, the reviewers’ comments, and the completeness and accuracy of the authors’ revisions, acceptance in the journal takes approximately 12 weeks, subject to final approval by the reviewers and Editor-in-Chief.
After a manuscript is accepted for publication, the first stage of editing and typesetting is performed. During this stage, the editorial staff correct minor errors, such as punctuation or reference issues, and verify that all necessary information about the manuscript and its authors has been provided. Following acceptance, authors receive the edited manuscript for proofreading. This is the final stage at which substantive editorial changes to the text may be made; the subsequent proof-correction stage is limited to correcting typographical and layout errors.
The typesetter and editorial staff prepare the final manuscript in the journal format. A PDF proof of the final article is sent to the author for final review before publication. Authors must carefully check the article, identify any typographical or layout errors, and use annotation tools to mark and explain any essential corrections.
After receipt of the corrected final proof and completion of the final corrections, the article will be published. The author will be notified promptly when the article becomes available online. In some cases, publication may be delayed to ensure that all articles assigned to an issue are published simultaneously.
Authors who wish to appeal a decision on their manuscript may do so by emailing the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of receiving the initial decision. The appeal email should provide detailed grounds for reconsideration and, where relevant, a complete response to the reviewers’ comments. If appropriate, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer who has not previously evaluated it. The Editor-in-Chief will consider the reviewers’ comments together with any subsequent editorial correspondence. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.
Names and email addresses entered in the journal system will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any third party.
The workflow indicates that after a manuscript is submitted by the author(s) through the journal management system, it is first screened by the journal office, journal expert, and Editor-in-Chief within a maximum of one week. Authors are therefore requested to read the Instructions for Authors carefully, prepare the manuscript according to the Persian-language author guidelines, and only then submit it. After initial evaluation by the journal’s Executive Manager, if the Editor-in-Chief approves the manuscript at the first stage, it is sent to reviewers for evaluation.
As illustrated in the workflow, manuscripts submitted to Caring Today are initially screened. If they comply with the journal’s stated writing and formatting requirements and fall within the journal’s scope, they are forwarded for peer review, and the author is informed that the manuscript has entered the review process. The review, acceptance, and publication process includes the following steps:
1. Receipt of the manuscript through the journal website and confirmation of receipt within less than one week.
2. Forwarding the manuscript to Editorial Board members or the relevant Section Editor.
3. Assessment of the manuscript at an Editorial Board meeting or through online review. Possible outcomes include: (a) rejection because the manuscript is not prioritized; (b) rejection because the content does not match the journal’s scope; or (c) rejection because of low quality or other deficiencies, with reasons communicated to the author.
4. Requesting initial revisions before peer review, where applicable. The manuscript is sent back to the authors, and after the Editorial Board’s requested changes are made and approved, it proceeds to peer review.
5. Sending the manuscript to at least 2–3 reviewers.
6. Receiving the peer-review outcome, which may be: (a) rejection; (b) acceptance; or (c) revision.
7. Forwarding the review results to the Editorial Board for evaluation and decision. Possible outcomes are: (a) rejection following two negative reviews; (b) referral to a third reviewer when one review is negative and the other requests revision; or (c) return to the author for revision when both reviewers request changes.
8. Receiving the revised manuscript from the authors.
9. Sending the revised manuscript to comparative reviewers. Possible outcomes are: (a) rejection of the revisions; (b) acceptance; or (c) a request for further revision. If further revision is required, the manuscript is returned to the authors; if all requested changes are satisfactorily addressed, acceptance is issued; and if the required changes are not made in accordance with the comparative reviewers’ comments, the manuscript is rejected.