Overview

UJHSE employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This policy is designed to ensure the quality, validity, and integrity of published research in accordance with COPE guidelines and ICMJE recommendations.

Review Model

Double-blind — both author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the review process.

Initial Screening

All submissions first undergo editorial screening for:

• Scope and relevance to UJHSE
• Adherence to author guidelines and formatting
• Completeness of required documents
• Plagiarism check (iThenticate, similarity <15%)
• Basic scientific quality and ethical compliance

Manuscripts not meeting these criteria may be desk-rejected within 5 working days.

Reviewer Selection

The editor assigns a minimum of 2 independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise
• Publication record
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Geographic and institutional diversity
• Previous review quality and timeliness

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following criteria:

• Scientific merit and originality
• Appropriateness of study design and methodology
• Validity and reliability of results
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation
• Adherence to reporting guidelines
• Clarity of writing
• Relevance to journal scope
• Ethical compliance

Review Timeline

Initial screening	5 working days
Reviewer invitation response	3 days
Review completion	21 days
Editorial decision	4–6 weeks from submission
Author revision (minor)	30 days
Author revision (major)	60 days

Decision Types

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required (re-review)
• Reject with option to resubmit
• Reject

Revision Process

Authors must submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to original reviewers. A second round of revision may be requested if needed.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by writing to the editor with detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and may involve additional reviewers.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts with others. Review reports are confidential between editors, reviewers, and authors.

Ethical Standards

Our peer review process is aligned with:

• COPE — Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• ICMJE — Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work
• WAME — Best Practices for Peer Review