For Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

The International Journal of New Findings in Health and Educational Sciences (IJHES) is committed to a rigorous, fair, confidential, and ethical peer-review process. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are normally evaluated by independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. The Editorial Office may also seek additional reviews when necessary.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is intended to assess the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and overall presentation of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations that assist the editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.

Peer-Review Process

1. Technical Check

Following submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial technical check to determine whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic submission requirements.

The technical check may include:

  • compliance with manuscript formatting and submission requirements;

  • plagiarism or similarity screening;

  • completeness of submitted files and required documents;

  • availability of required statements and declarations;

  • author and affiliation information;

  • ethical approval and consent information, where applicable; and

  • other administrative or technical requirements.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for correction or completion before entering editorial assessment.

2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript, including:

  • alignment with the journal's aims and scope;

  • originality and potential scholarly contribution;

  • scientific and academic quality;

  • methodological appropriateness;

  • language and presentation;

  • compliance with publication ethics requirements; and

  • potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific or scholarly merit, or fail to meet essential ethical or editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Section Editor Assessment

Where applicable, a Section Editor or Associate Editor may be assigned to the manuscript.

The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript in greater detail, including:

  • the clarity and significance of the research question;

  • the appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • the quality and suitability of the methodology;

  • the presentation and interpretation of results;

  • the relevance and use of scientific literature;

  • compliance with applicable ethical standards;

  • clarity of language and scientific presentation; and

  • potential conflicts of interest.

The Section Editor may recommend rejection, revision, or referral to external peer reviewers.

4. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to independent peer reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript objectively and confidentially. Their evaluation may include:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • clarity of the research question, objectives, and hypotheses, where applicable;

  • adequacy of the theoretical or scientific background;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

  • quality of data analysis and interpretation;

  • validity and reliability of the conclusions;

  • relevance and adequacy of the references;

  • ethical compliance;

  • clarity of writing and presentation; and

  • overall contribution to the relevant field.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments that clearly explain the basis for their recommendations.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all information obtained during the peer-review process as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized individuals;

  • use unpublished information for personal, academic, or professional advantage;

  • contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless authorized by the Editorial Office; or

  • disclose their review or the identity of other reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • recent collaboration with an author;

  • close personal or professional relationships;

  • institutional relationships that may affect impartiality;

  • financial interests;

  • academic or professional competition; or

  • any other circumstance that could reasonably affect the reviewer's objectivity.

If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

IJHES will manage conflicts of interest in accordance with its publication ethics policies and applicable COPE principles.

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial changes required.

  • Minor Revision – limited revisions are required before publication.

  • Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may require further review.

  • Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the editor formally assigned to make the decision.

Review Reports

A review report should be clear, professional, objective, and supported by specific comments.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major and minor concerns and to provide practical suggestions for improvement.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of authors and focus their comments on the manuscript and the research presented.

Revision and Additional Review

Authors may be invited to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer and editorial comments.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers when necessary.

More than one round of peer review may be conducted when substantial revisions are required or when further assessment is necessary.

Final Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports and the recommendations of the assigned editor, the Editor-in-Chief or designated decision-making editor makes the final editorial decision.

The possible final outcomes include:

  • acceptance for publication;

  • request for further revision; or

  • rejection.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's official communication channels.

Reviewer Recognition

Where appropriate and subject to the reviewer's consent and the availability of the relevant service, IJHES may provide documentation or recognition of completed peer-review activities.

Reviewers should not publicly disclose confidential details of manuscripts they have reviewed.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

  1. evaluate the manuscript objectively and fairly;

  2. maintain strict confidentiality;

  3. disclose relevant conflicts of interest;

  4. complete the review within the agreed timeframe or notify the Editorial Office if additional time is required;

  5. provide constructive and evidence-based comments;

  6. identify relevant published work where appropriate;

  7. alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other research-integrity concerns; and

  8. avoid using information obtained through peer review for personal or professional benefit.

IJHES expects all reviewers to contribute to a fair, independent, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process.