Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The International Journal of New Findings in Health and Educational Sciences (IJHES) follows a double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure the academic quality, originality, scientific validity, ethical compliance, and relevance of published research.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through an editorial and peer-review process appropriate to the nature of the submission.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope;

  • Meets the basic requirements of the journal's Author Guidelines;

  • Presents a clear research question, objective, and appropriate scholarly structure;

  • Meets applicable ethical and publication requirements;

  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and academic relevance;

  • Contains the necessary information and documentation for further evaluation.

The editorial team may decline manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope or that do not meet the journal's basic academic, ethical, or editorial requirements.

Passing the initial screening does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

2. Originality and Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be subject to appropriate originality and similarity screening procedures.

The screening process may identify plagiarism, substantial text overlap, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, or other forms of academic misconduct.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original and that all sources and previously published material are appropriately acknowledged.

A manuscript may be rejected or returned for clarification or revision if significant concerns regarding originality or inappropriate textual overlap are identified.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment may be sent for external peer review.

Reviewers are selected according to their:

  • Academic and research expertise;

  • Knowledge of the subject area;

  • Relevant publication or research experience;

  • Suitability to evaluate the methodological and scientific aspects of the manuscript.

The journal seeks to assign reviewers who can provide an independent and objective assessment of the submitted work.

Reviewers with actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest should not participate in the evaluation of a manuscript.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

IJHES uses a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this system:

  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers;

  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors;

  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently;

  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with the journal's submission requirements and should avoid unnecessary information that could reveal their identity during the anonymous review process.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria relevant to the type and subject of the submission.

These criteria may include:

  • Originality and novelty;

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • Clarity of research objectives and questions;

  • Quality of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

  • Quality and suitability of data and analytical procedures;

  • Accuracy and clarity of results;

  • Quality of discussion and interpretation;

  • Consistency between the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;

  • Quality and relevance of references;

  • Ethical considerations;

  • Overall scientific and scholarly contribution;

  • Clarity and quality of academic writing.

Reviewers may provide detailed comments and recommendations to assist authors and editors in evaluating and improving the manuscript.

6. Editorial Decision

After the peer-review process, the Editor or designated editorial decision-maker evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' comments and other relevant editorial considerations.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the journal's editorial team based on the overall assessment of the manuscript.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript; and

  2. A detailed response to the reviewers' comments explaining how each substantive issue has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify changes made in the revised manuscript where requested by the journal.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers when considered necessary.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the editorial team determines that it satisfies the journal's scientific, editorial, and ethical requirements.

Acceptance is based on the overall quality of the manuscript and the outcome of the editorial and peer-review process.

Neither the payment of an article processing charge nor the author's ability or willingness to pay an APC influences the editorial decision.

9. Post-Acceptance Production

Following formal acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the journal's production process.

Depending on the manuscript and publication requirements, production may include:

  • Copyediting;

  • Formatting;

  • Proofreading;

  • Author review of proofs;

  • Metadata preparation;

  • DOI and publication information preparation;

  • Final publication processing.

Where an APC is applicable, the author is notified through the journal's official communication channels after formal acceptance and provided with the relevant payment information.

Payment of an applicable APC does not constitute acceptance and does not influence the editorial decision.

10. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript content or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

  • Use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;

  • Contact authors directly concerning the manuscript unless expressly authorized by the journal;

  • Disclose the identity of authors or reviewers;

  • Disclose confidential editorial correspondence or review reports.

Reviewers should also avoid retaining or reproducing confidential manuscript materials beyond what is necessary to complete the review.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their objective evaluation or editorial decision.

A reviewer who has a significant conflict of interest should decline the review assignment and notify the editorial office.

Editors should also recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, editorial independence.

12. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments;

  • Evaluate the manuscript fairly and independently;

  • Focus comments on the scholarly work rather than the authors personally;

  • Identify important relevant literature where appropriate;

  • Clearly distinguish major concerns from minor recommendations;

  • Complete reviews within the timeframe communicated by the editorial office where reasonably possible;

  • Immediately inform the editorial office if they are unable to complete a review;

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts or those of a particular journal or publication group.

13. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the journal.

An appeal should:

  • Clearly identify the manuscript concerned;

  • Explain the specific grounds for the appeal;

  • Identify any alleged factual or procedural error;

  • Provide relevant evidence or supporting information where appropriate.

Appeals should not simply express disagreement with an editorial decision without substantive justification.

Appeals are considered in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

14. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and overall scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Editors are expected to exercise independent academic judgment and to manage conflicts of interest appropriately.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by:

  • The author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal characteristics;

  • Commercial considerations;

  • The author's ability or willingness to pay an APC;

  • Potential financial benefits to the journal.

15. Ethical and Research Integrity Considerations

IJHES expects authors, reviewers, and editors to comply with appropriate standards of research and publication ethics.

Where relevant, manuscripts may be evaluated for:

  • Ethical approval;

  • Informed consent;

  • Protection of human participants;

  • Animal welfare;

  • Conflicts of interest;

  • Authorship and contributorship;

  • Data integrity;

  • Plagiarism and duplicate publication;

  • Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Concerns identified during peer review may be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Important Note for Authors

Submission of a manuscript to IJHES does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

All manuscripts are subject to editorial assessment, and manuscripts that pass the initial screening may undergo external peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet its academic, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards.

The peer-review process is conducted with the objective of maintaining the quality, integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.