Peer Review Policy

The Scientific Journal for Publishing in Health Research and Technology (SJPHRT) is committed to ensuring the integrity and quality of the research it publishes. All submitted manuscripts are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process, which is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing.

1. Process and Confidentiality

  • Double-Blind Peer Review: SJPHRT employs a double-blind peer-review system. This means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. The manuscript content is stripped of any identifying information before being sent to reviewers.

  • Confidentiality: The peer-review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers and members of the editorial team are not permitted to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone outside of the review process.

2. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their expertise, academic reputation, and relevant experience in the subject area of the manuscript. The journal aims to have a minimum of two qualified reviewers for each manuscript.

  • Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of the manuscript. Their feedback should focus on the following aspects:

    • Originality and Significance: Does the paper present novel findings and make a significant contribution to its field?

    • Methodology: Are the methods sound and clearly described? Can the study be reproduced?

    • Validity and Rigor: Are the conclusions supported by the results and data?

    • Clarity and Quality: Is the manuscript well-written, easy to understand, and properly structured?

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their review. They should decline the invitation to review if a conflict exists.

3. Review Outcomes

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

  • Acceptance: The manuscript is ready for publication.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after the author makes minor changes.

  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes and will be sent for a second round of review.

  • Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

4. Appeals

  • Grounds for Appeal: Authors who believe that a decision to reject their manuscript was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the work, a bias, or a significant error in the review process may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Appeal Review: The appeal will be reviewed by the editorial board, whose decision will be final.

This policy is in place to ensure a fair and high-quality publication process that benefits the academic community and promotes ethical scholarly practices.