Peer Review Process
Double Blind Peer Review
Journal of Ideas in Health adoptes a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous. Authors must be sure that their identity is not included in the main text of manuscript.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is an important evaluation process, designed to maintain the quality of high scientific work. The aim of this process is 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 suitability of the paper for publication in the journal.
Conflicts of Interest
In case of any conflict of interest that may prejudice the report, reviewers can either contact the editor office directly or reject the review invitation. Conflicts of interest arise when professional judgment is affected by other interest, 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 it.
The reviewers should not share the content of the manuscript (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 be careful to 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 competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Timely Reviews (Promptness)
Usually Journal ask the valuable reviewers to submit their reports in a timely manner, to provide a high quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community, otherwise reviewers have to contact the editorial office to excuse themselfs 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 and 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.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.