The Journal of Health Research and Society (JHRS) employs a double-blind peer review process. In this process, neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identities during the review process. It ensures impartiality and helps to prevent bias. The associate editor will assign the article to at least two expert peer reviewers who will scrutinize and evaluate the manuscript. The peer reviewers will provide comments and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript, as well as a decision of acceptance, revision or rejection of the manuscript.
The review process will be conducted in a double-blind manner, in such a way that the peer reviewers will not know the identity of the authors of the manuscript, nor will the authors know the identities of the reviewers that evaluated their manuscript The list of peer reviewers who have collaborated with the journal is published after the assigned issue is complete.

 

Review process

1. Authors submit their cover letter and manuscript online through the journal's submission system.

2. Editor-in-chief and designated editorial board members conduct an initial screening to assess the originality and suitability of the manuscript to the journal aims and scope. Manuscripts that lack originality and do not align with the JHRS or quality standards are declined at this stage.

3. Associate editor assigns manuscripts that pass the initial screening to at least two independent expert peer reviewers who are selected based on their qualifications, expertise in the field, and availability.

4. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria: originality, significance, methodology, clarity, and overall quality. They provide detailed comments and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript.

5. Associate editor and editor-in-chief make a decision regarding the manuscript based on the results of the peer review:

• Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication without revisions. The editor-in-chief will relay the current version of the manuscript to the editorial staff for quality assurance checks and galley proofing.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript needs clarifications, formatting adjustments, or small additions that do not change the fundamental conceptualizations or methodology. The authors will be given a specified period to address the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Upon resubmission, the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the reviewers before a final decision is made.
• Major Revisions: Aside from the formatting adjustments, or small additions, the manuscript necessitates substantial changes to the analysis, methodology, interpretation of results, or structure of the manuscript. The authors will be given a specified period to revise and resubmit their work. Upon resubmission, the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the reviewers before a final decision is made.
• Reject: The manuscript is declined for further processing. The editor-in-chief will relay reviewer comments and provide editorial feedback to the authors outlining the major issues or points for rejection. 

Authors may appeal a rejection decision. The appeal will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and, if necessary, by additional members of the editorial board. 

All information related to the peer review process, including the identities of reviewers and authors, will be kept confidential.

JHRS does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. The decision to publish a manuscript is based solely on the quality of the research and the reviewers' assessments.

JHRS strives to provide timely peer reviews, but cannot guarantee specific turnaround times. The review process may take longer for complex or sensitive manuscripts.

 

 Author responsibilities

Athors are responsible for preparing the cover letter. Aside from concisely introducing the research, the cover letter should declare conflict of interest, statement of originality, author agreement, and ethical approval.

Authors must prepare the manuscript following the journal guidelines. The manuscript should be anonymized and present details sufficiently to allow complete review.

Authors must properly attribute all in-text citations and references used in the manuscript. They must also acknowledge the sources of works included in the manuscipt. Authors must observe guidelines set by the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7^th edition).

Authors should ensure the originality of their work, ensuring that the manuscript submitted is under review elsewhere in another journal or has not yet been published. This matter should be also declared in the cover letter.

Plagiarism and unethical AI use are strictly prohibited. Manuscripts confirmed of plagiarism and AI writing will automatically be rejected upon going through the process stipulated under the plagiarism guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics.

Authors should disclose any conflicting or competing interests that may influence the results of the study. Sources of financial support, if any, are to be included in the cover letter.

Authors of manuscipts that entail the human subjects or the handling of confidential data must meet the regulations for ethical guidelines for educational research of the British Educational Research Association. Authors must comply with these rules through an approved ethical clearance to ensure observance of ethics in the research process.

Authors are expected to actively participate in the review process. They must professionally respond to editor and reviewer comments and suggestions. It includes editing the manuscript, providing additional information if needed, giving access to research data upon request, and submitting updated manuscript in a timely manner.

Confidentiality of the review process must be maintained. Authors should not disclose information to third parties without permission.

 

Editor responsibilities

Editors lead and oversee the initial review or screening, also known as “desk review”, which manuscripts submitted to the journal should proceed to the peer review process. Their review responsibilities are guided by the journal aim, scope, and policies. The editor may seek advice from other editors or editorial board members when initially reviewing manuscripts.

Editors must avoid potential conflicts of interest. They must abstain themselves from handling or screening manuscripts where they have personal, financial or other conflicts of interest, and delegate these manuscripts to editors.

Editors commit to preserving an independent and objective desk and peer review processes.  They evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly suitability to the aims and scope of the journal. Thus, they ensure that:

• financial support from its publishing institution or any commercial revenue from sources, if available, will have no influence on editorial screening and decisions.
• manuscripts are screened regardless of the gender, race, institutional affiliation, position, religion, ethnicity, or citizenship of the authors.

The only parties with knowledge of a manuscript are the editors themselves and the authors. Manuscripts submitted for consideration must be handled with confidentiality by the editors. The manuscripts cannot be displayed elsewhere or discussed with others.

 

Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers are scholars in the field who assist the editor in providing evaluation and decision and help the authors improve their manuscript. They are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards in their reviews.

Reviewers are expected to be very highly knowledgeable in the field and complete their reviews within a given period. If they think they are not qualified to expertly evaluate the assigned manuscript or cannot complete the review process in a timely manner, they should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be invited.

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest either personal, financial, or other ties. If competing interest or connections with any of the authors linked with the manuscript is identified, they should decline the invitation. Reviewers should avoid any form of bias, ensuring that their evaluations are fair and focused solely on the scholarly or technical merit of the manuscript.

Reviewers should provide honest and constructive evaluation, upholding the integrity of the review process and advancement of scholarly work. An objective evaluation should be the basis of their comments and suggestions, offering evidence-based reviews of the strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement of the manuscript. Evaluation should be written in a professionally respectful in tone and supposed to guide authors in enhancing the clarity and rigor of their manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted for consideration must be handled with confidentiality. Other than with the permission provided by the editor, manuscripts cannot be displayed elsewhere or discussed with others.