Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement

 Journal of Ideas in Health adopts a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous.

Duties of Reviewer

Journal of Ideas in Health encourages the reviewers to follow the guidelines based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’ s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Reviewers.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review is a critical evaluation process designed to maintain the quality of excellent scientific work. This process aims to give constructive feedback to authors so that their work becomes one of the highest possible academic standards. Peer reviews also assist the author in improving the paper and help the editors decide on the paper's suitability for publication in the journal.

Conflicts of Interest

If any conflict of interest may prejudice the report, reviewers can either contact the editor's office directly or reject the review invitation. Conflicts of interest arise when professional judgment is affected by other interests, for example, a financial relationship, an intellectual belief, a personal relationship, or a competition. To maintain high credibility standards, we ask reviewers to be aware of potential conflicts of interest and inform us about them.


The reviewers should not share the manuscript's content (including the summary or abstract) with another person except as authorized by the editor. Double-blind peer review is a confidential process where both the author and the reviewer must keep the content confidential. Auditors should inform the Editorial Office if they prefer a student or colleague to write the review on their behalf.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, known history of antipathy with the author (s), possibility to profit financially from the work or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In such a case, reviewers should inform the editors or journal staff and recuse themselves if they feel that they cannot offer an impartial review.

Timely Reviews (Promptness)

Usually, Journal asks the valuable reviewers to submit their reports on time, to provide a high-quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community, otherwise, reviewers have to contact the editorial office to excuse themselves from the review if they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or they know that its prompt review will be impossible. They need to extend the deadline for their review.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.