Paper Submission Process
The submitting author, often referred to as the corresponding author, is responsible for submitting the manuscript to the journal, typically through a tailored Submission Form. To ensure confidentiality, the Submission Form is used exclusively for author details and the manuscript itself is devoid of any identifying information.

Initial Editorial Assessment
The journal's editorial office reviews the manuscript's structure and format in accordance with the journal's Submission Guidelines to verify the inclusion of all necessary sections and stylistic elements. At this stage, the content quality of the manuscript is not evaluated.

Plagiarism Evaluation
Plagiarism is defined as the unauthorized use or representation of another author’s language, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work. The journal conducts a plagiarism check to confirm that the manuscript does not contain any unapproved content from other authors. During this assessment, quoted material and content with footnotes or endnotes are excluded from the plagiarism evaluation.

Editor-in-Chief Review
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) assesses whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal and evaluates its originality and appeal. If the paper does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected without further review.

Assignment of Associate Editor
Journal of Rejuvenation has Associate Editors responsible for managing the peer review process. At this time, an Associate Editor may be assigned to the manuscript.

Reviewer Invitations
The handling editor extends invitations to potential reviewers deemed suitable for evaluating the manuscript. As acceptances are received, additional invitations may be sent if necessary to secure the required number of reviewers, typically two, though this may vary by journal.

Review Process
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript by reading it multiple times. Their initial reading helps form a preliminary assessment. If significant issues are identified, the reviewer may choose to reject the manuscript at this point. Otherwise, they will continue to analyze the paper, taking detailed notes to create a comprehensive Point-by-Point Review. 
Once the review process is completed, the reviewers submit their recommendations regarding acceptance, rejection, or necessary revisions (identified as major or minor) for reconsideration.

Journal Review Evaluation
The handling editor evaluates all returned reviews before making a final decision. In cases where the reviews vary significantly, the editor may solicit an additional review to gain further insights before reaching a conclusion.

Communication of the Decision
The editor informs the author of the decision via email, including relevant feedback from reviewers. The anonymity of the comments depends on the journal's peer review policies.

Final Publication Process
If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to production. In cases of rejection or requests for major or minor revisions, constructive feedback from reviewers is provided to assist the author in enhancing the paper. Reviewers are also notified of the outcome of their evaluations. If revisions are requested, reviewers can expect to receive a new version unless they opt out of further involvement. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor.

Post-Publication Review
Post-publication review allows for ongoing evaluation and potential revision of a paper after it has been published. This may include a comments page or discussion forum accompanying the published article. Notably, post-publication peer review complements pre-publication reviews rather than replacing them. The journal’s editorial team retains the authority to make necessary changes to the manuscript post-publication for quality control purposes.

This process reflects the dynamic nature of knowledge and provides avenues for the correction and enhancement of published work as new insights emerge.