| Post date: 2023/01/23 |
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, as a member of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, co-published by Negah Institute for Scientific Communication, is committed to applying a double-blind peer reviewing process based on the COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practices and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. You may find the journal's Policies and Guidelines for Peer-reviewers here.
Peer Review Process
The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially, all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of two or more members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage, but in all other cases, the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. Papers that do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example, because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally, a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not to send it out for review. This process takes no more than two weeks, and the author(s) will be informed of the primary decision.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers under the supervision of the journal section editor and also the editor-in-chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure the author's identity is concealed during the review process. Still, it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity, and the review will be single-blind (i.e., authors do not know the reviewers' identities). Authors have the right to communicate to the editor if they do not wish their manuscript to be reviewed by a particular reviewer because of potential conflicts of interest. The author can also suggest the names of possible competent reviewers, but it is up to the editor to accept them.
To assist the speed of the peer review process, authors are requested to introduce two well-known experts with their contact details, but the Editor-in-Chief would be emancipated finally.
On average, the journal's reviewing process takes 2 to 4 months. After receiving the review report, authors have two weeks to submit their revised version. The revised version of the manuscript should be included with a reply to referees' comments separately from article to article. In addition, the changes should be marked as underlined or colored text in the article. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance. You may find the journal's article reviewing procedure here.
Reviewers Role
Reviewers are the main members contributing to the benefit of the journal being a peer-reviewed (double-blind referee) journal. They insist that they not disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified, if the timely review cannot be done by him/her, or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person's advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his/her own concern; it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers, being the base of the whole quality process, should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analyze an article; this can be done on a case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review
Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At the Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer, you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill out the journal's reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer. At this stage, you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author's Instructions with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journal's aims and scope are available on the "Journal Information" menu and pages.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive, and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective, critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the editor-in-chief when deciding on the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers to the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published, you should recommend rejection.
You should also:
You may find the journal's article reviewing procedure here.
Privacy and Confidentiality
(Prepared Based on ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)
In the Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors' rights may be violated by disclosure of confidential details during the review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged, but otherwise, it must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.
Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors' rights by not publicly discussing the authors' work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others except with the editor's permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.
COPE's Guidelines & Flowcharts
The Iranian Journal of Health Sciences is committed to following and applying guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, please click here.
International Standards for Authors and Editors
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences is committed to following and applying International Standards for Authors and Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal's reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors here. Also, you may find the International Standards for Editors here.
Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process
Although we are applying for a double-blind peer review, the research sphere can be a small world. This means that many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with the author's work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:
The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, as a member of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, is committed to applying the following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Negah Institute for Scientific Communication:
Peer Review Process
The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially, all papers are assessed by an editorial committee consisting of two or more members of the editorial team. The prime purpose is to decide whether to send a paper for peer review and to give a rapid decision on those that are not.
Editorials and Letters may be accepted at this stage, but in all other cases, the decision is to reject the paper or to send it for peer review. Papers that do not meet basic standards or are unlikely to be published irrespective of a positive peer review, for example, because their novel contribution is insufficient or the relevance to the discipline is unclear, may be rejected at this point in order to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally, a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not to send it out for review. This process takes no more than two weeks, and the author(s) will be informed of the primary decision.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers under the supervision of the journal section editor and also the editor-in-chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure the author's identity is concealed during the review process. Still, it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity, and the review will be single-blind (i.e., authors do not know the reviewers' identities). Authors have the right to communicate to the editor if they do not wish their manuscript to be reviewed by a particular reviewer because of potential conflicts of interest. The author can also suggest the names of possible competent reviewers, but it is up to the editor to accept them.
To assist the speed of the peer review process, authors are requested to introduce two well-known experts with their contact details, but the Editor-in-Chief would be emancipated finally.
On average, the journal's reviewing process takes 2 to 4 months. After receiving the review report, authors have two weeks to submit their revised version. The revised version of the manuscript should be included with a reply to referees' comments separately from article to article. In addition, the changes should be marked as underlined or colored text in the article. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance. You may find the journal's article reviewing procedure here.
Reviewers Role
Reviewers are the main members contributing to the benefit of the journal being a peer-reviewed (double-blind referee) journal. They insist that they not disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified, if the timely review cannot be done by him/her, or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person's advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his/her own concern; it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers, being the base of the whole quality process, should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analyze an article; this can be done on a case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review
- Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines
- Purpose and Objective of the article
- Method of using transitions in the article
- Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
- References provided to substantiate the content
- Grammar, punctuation, and spelling · Plagiarism issues
- Suitability of the article to the need
Guidance for Peer Reviewers
All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. At the Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, we believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer, you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill out the journal's reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer. At this stage, you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author's Instructions with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journal's aims and scope are available on the "Journal Information" menu and pages.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive, and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective, critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the editor-in-chief when deciding on the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers to the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published, you should recommend rejection.
You should also:
- Write clearly so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English.
- Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
- Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
- If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
- Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated
You may find the journal's article reviewing procedure here.
Privacy and Confidentiality
(Prepared Based on ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)
In the Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors' rights may be violated by disclosure of confidential details during the review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged, but otherwise, it must be honored. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.
Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors' rights by not publicly discussing the authors' work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others except with the editor's permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.
COPE's Guidelines & Flowcharts
The Iranian Journal of Health Sciences is committed to following and applying guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues. For more information, please click here.
International Standards for Authors and Editors
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences is committed to following and applying International Standards for Authors and Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal's reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors here. Also, you may find the International Standards for Editors here.
Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process
Although we are applying for a double-blind peer review, the research sphere can be a small world. This means that many reviewers may know the author out of familiarity with the author's work. You can certainly give a fair assessment of an article that is written by a friend or competitor, but:
- If there's a significant conflict of interest, you should reveal this to the editor.
- If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request.
- Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times – judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
- Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer.
The Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences, as a member of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, is committed to applying the following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Negah Institute for Scientific Communication:
- Negah Principles on Publication Ethics
- Negah Guidelines and Flowcharts on Publication Ethics
- Negah Standards for Authors
- Negah Standards for Editors
- Negah Policies and Guidelines of Peer Review
- Negah Ethical Principles for Medical Research
- Negah Ethical Principles for Psychological Research
- Negah Policies on Conflict of Interest
View: 4925 Time(s) |
Print: 267 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
