Peer Review Process
Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing that ensures the quality, credibility, and integrity of published research. The EPH – International Journal of Medical and Health Science (IJMHS) follows a structured and rigorous double-blind peer review system designed to evaluate manuscripts in a fair, transparent, and timely manner while maintaining high academic and ethical standards.
Initial Evaluation
Upon submission, each manuscript is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial office to determine its suitability for the journal. This initial screening evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, scientific contribution, clarity, and adherence to submission guidelines.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack originality, demonstrate methodological weaknesses, contain significant language issues, or show high similarity may be rejected at this stage without external review. Authors are typically notified of the decision within 10–15 days.
Screening and Manuscript Preparation
Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are checked for completeness and compliance with formatting and submission requirements. Authors must ensure that all necessary sections are included and that the manuscript follows the prescribed structure and style.
If any issues are identified, the manuscript is returned to the authors for revision. Only submissions that fully comply with the journal’s requirements proceed to the peer review stage.
Type of Peer Review
The journal adopts a double-blind peer review model to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluation. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review cycle.
Authors are required to submit a separate title page containing author details and a blinded manuscript without identifying information to maintain anonymity and ensure objective assessment.
Review Process
Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research experience.
Reviewers provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to support editorial decisions. The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 4–6 weeks. In cases of conflicting or delayed reviews, additional reviewers may be invited.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts based on reviewer comments and submit a detailed response addressing each point. Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation, and multiple rounds of revision may be required to meet publication standards.
Editorial Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment. Possible decisions include:
- Acceptance
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Rejection
Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and formatting to ensure clarity and consistency. Authors may be required to submit necessary documents, including copyright and conflict of interest declarations.
Articles may be published online as “Articles in Press” prior to final issue publication. Final proofs are shared with authors for approval before publication.
Ethical Standards and Responsibilities
The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. All participants in the peer review process—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to adhere to ethical principles, including:
- Maintaining confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
- Disclosing any conflicts of interest
- Ensuring objective and unbiased evaluation
- Avoiding the use of unpublished material for personal advantage
These practices align with internationally recognized ethical guidelines and contribute to the integrity and reliability of the scholarly publishing process.
