Any proposed manuscript is subject to the opinion of at least two independent reviewers, not part of the editorial board, and recognized for their expertise in the field. Submissions are double blind reviewed : the author is not known to the reporters and the reporters do not know the author.

If a reviewer accepts or wants to disclose his or her name  he or she should send his/her written permission to the editor.

When a manuscript is definitely rejected, all copies of the manuscript are deleted  from the editorial system.

When a manuscript is published, we keep copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondence in perpetuity, to help answer future questions about the work should they arise.

All articles are checked, in French and English,  for plagiarism with crossRef similarity check by Ithenticate.

If a submission of an article has a similarity check of more than 20 % a mail is sent to the main author with the report of the similarities detected and he is kindly requested to resubmit his paper with more personal considerations.

CrossRef Similarity check® indicates the percentage of identical text from different sources and the percentage of text present in a single source. Also, human control is exercised so that a degree of similarity lower than 20% may not be accepted: for example, the recopy of a table coming from a not clearly referenced article will not be accepted. On the other hand, copying the methodology from a text by the same author is tolerated. It is also possible that a multitude of small separate pieces of sentences will result in a higher similarity score without plagiarism. We, therefore, use the percentage of similarity as an initial guide that may lead to a different conclusion depending on the type of similarity, justifying a request for an explanation to the author. In practice, we use the following reference as a guide:

A complex diagram or drawing copied from another article requires the authorization of its author or, at least, to clearly indicate the reference of the article from which it comes and the name of the author.

Special cases :

- the BDD being the journal of the French home dialysis registry (RDPLF), analysis of the database are usually presented by a member of the editorial board and reviewed by two other members of the editorial board.

- the RDPLF has a convention with the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis and the authorization of the Editor of SAGEedition to translate into French and publish the translation of the Open Access guidelines of the ISPD, provided that clear reference to the original English text and its address on SAGE site is provided  (see )

Evaluation step 1:

The text is assessed  by one or two members of the editorial board who check conformity with the following rules

  • the subject must be in the aim of the journal
  • The presentation and structure should conform to the recommendations of the authors

if the article does not meet the criteria, it is returned to the authors without submission to reviewers. If accepted by the editor, it is sent to the reviewers.

Evaluation step 2 :

The reviewers are chosen according to their expertise in the field of the text that they have to criticize and evaluate.

The reviewers are independent of the editorial board

Reviewers must report any conflict of interest that could potentially distort their judgement.

They should underline any parts of the text for which they do not feel competent.

They must consider the articles submitted to them as strictly confidential, must not keep them for themselves, and must destroy them at the end of their evaluation. Peer feedback should be objective and constructive without being hostile or derogatory in nature. Further information on ethical peer review issues and conflicts of interest is available in the COPE guidelines. 

In addition, the editorial committee is committed to following the guidelines of the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

The reviewers undertake to submit their comments within a maximum period of 15 days.

Each reviewer should ask themselves these questions:

  • Is the text original?
  • Is the text consistent with the aims of the journal?
  • Does it provide interesting information to the journal's target readers?
  • Is the text well written?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the results and the discussion?
  • Do the figures and tables provide useful and complementary information to the text?
  • Are the methods used by the author appropriate; are potential biases discussed?
  • They must check that the bibliography is correctly numbered and that all articles in the bibliography are noted in the text with the correct number.
  • Do the legends of figures and tables allow them to be understood without referring to the text?
  • When tables contain totals or percentages, they must as far as possible check that there are no errors.
  • The summary and the main text must be analyzed; the summary must not include information missing from the main text of which it is the faithful synthesis. Any discrepancies between the abstract and the main text must be pointed out.
  • The conclusion should not add new statements not explained in the previous discussion.

The reviewers must write their opinion on the whole text and if necessary propose corrections or improvements.

Their opinion is sent to the editorial board of the journal using the form made available to them, to which is added a free text part divided into two sections, one confidential for the publisher, the other for the authors.

Criticisms and remarks addressed to the author must be courteous and constructive, and must help the author to improve his text.

If the reviewers have requested corrections, these are sent to the authors who must, within 8 days, respond to the publisher to say whether they agree to make them: otherwise their submission is definitively refused. If the authors agree to make their submission, it must be sent to the reading committee within a maximum of 21 days.

The authors may be unable to respond to certain requests from the rapporteurs: they must then send a documented letter explaining why they cannot follow the opinion of the reviewers. Their answer will be sent back to the reviewers who would decide if they are satisfied with the explanations.


Evaluation step 3:

If the authors have respected the deadlines, if they have made any corrections requested by the reviewers and if the reviewers have accepted the article, the latter is definitively accepted and published in the following issue of the BDD: the deadline can then be 15 days to 3 months depending on the date of final acceptance.  If the authors have not been able to respond to some requests of the reviewers, the opinion is asked by the editorial committee which then decides whether or not to publish the article. If it is not accepted, a justification is given to the authors.

Proof before publication

The article, once accepted, is formatted, for its final layout, by the secretariat. Before posting and publication, a pdf proof is sent to the authors for approval. At this stage, only modifications of details that do not change the layout are accepted. A form is sent to each co-author to confirm that he/she is the author or co-author of the article, that he/she accepts publication, and to declare any conflicts of interest. The form is available at this link. Each co-author must complete it and send it to the publisher directly or through the main author.

In case of suspicion of potential manipulation, of the peer review process :

Anyone can report suspected manipulation of the review process, either by a reviewer or an author. A documented letter should then be sent to the Chief Editor's Office, which will strictly follow the recommendations of the COPE website and its decision algorithm at

All decisions will be taken by mutual agreement between the directors of the journal, after consultation with at least two members of the editorial board. If necessary, the opinion of the medical and nursing advisory board will be taken. In all cases, the editor will follow the COPE guidelines available at: