Journal of Applied Health Sciences (JAHS)

The Journal of Applied Health Sciences (JAHS) uses a double-blind, independent, and international peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, objectivity, and integrity of all published articles. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity during the review.

Our peer-review procedures follow the standards of COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE’s editorial recommendations, and Scopus publication ethics requirements.

  1. Overview of the JAHS Peer-Review Workflow

All submitted manuscripts undergo the following steps:

Step 1. Initial Editorial Screening (Editor-in-Chief / Associate Editors)

  • Verification of manuscript scope alignment
  • Assessment of scientific relevance and novelty
  • iThenticate plagiarism screening
  • Compliance check with author instructions and ethical requirements
  • Evaluation of manuscript completeness (figures, tables, ethics approvals, data availability)

Decision at this stage:

  • Send to peer review, or
  • Return to authors for technical revision, or
  • Reject without review (insufficient quality or out of scope)

Step 2. Assignment of Reviewers

  • Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two (2) independent, qualified experts.
  • Reviewers are selected based on:
    • Subject-matter expertise
    • Publication record
    • Absence of conflicts of interest
    • Geographical and institutional diversity

JAHS actively aims for international reviewer representation, ideally from at least two different countries.

Step 3. Double-Blind Review Process

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
  • All identifying information must be removed before review.

Step 4. Review Timeline

Standard timeline:

  • Reviewer invitation: within 3–5 days after initial screening
  • Review period: 2–3 weeks
  • Re-review (if needed): 1–2 weeks

Extensions may be granted when justified.

Step 5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

  • Originality and novelty
  • Clarity of hypotheses and objectives
  • Adequacy of study design
  • Robustness of methodology
  • Validity of statistical analyses
  • Reproducibility of findings

Ethical Standards

  • Ethics committee approval
  • Informed consent
  • Handling of patient data
  • Animal welfare compliance

Quality of Presentation

  • Organization and clarity
  • Adequacy of figures/tables
  • Quality of English
  • Transparency of data

Contribution to the Field

  • Relevance for applied health sciences
  • Potential impact on research, practice, or policy

Step 6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers select one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept after minor revision
  • Major revision required
  • Reject

Reviewers must provide constructive, evidence-based comments for authors and confidential comments for the editor (if needed).

Step 7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor:

  • Evaluates reviewer reports
  • May seek additional reviews for conflicting recommendations
  • Ensures fair and unbiased decision-making
  • Makes the final decision

Possible editorial outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Step 8. Revision Stage

Authors must:

  • Address all reviewer comments point-by-point
  • Highlight changes in the revised manuscript
  • Provide explanations when suggestions are not accepted

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editors.

Step 9. Final Acceptance

Upon acceptance, manuscripts undergo:

  • Final editorial review
  • Technical editing
  • Proofreading
  • DOI assignment
  • Online publication

Authors must approve final proofs.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must adhere to:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed with anyone.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be unbiased and evidence-based.
  • Impartiality: Reviewers must decline review assignments if conflicts of interest exist.
  • Integrity: Unethical behavior or suspected misconduct must be reported to the editor.
  • Ethical AI Use: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to external AI tools (per JAHS AI policy).

Reviewers must evaluate:

  • Originality
  • Scientific accuracy
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity and coherence
  • Literature integration
  • Validity of conclusions
  1. Editor Responsibilities

Editors must ensure:

3.1 Fairness and Objectivity

  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit
  • No bias based on nationality, gender, affiliation, or theoretical orientation

3.2 Confidentiality

Editors must not:

  • Disclose manuscript content
  • Share reviewer identities
  • Use unpublished data for personal research

3.3 Transparency

Editor’s document:

  • Reviewer assignments
  • Decisions and rationale
  • Conflicts of interest

3.4 COI Management (per JAHS COI Policy)

Editors must recuse themselves when conflicts of interest arise.

  1. Special Review Models Used by JAHS

4.1 Double-Blind Review (Standard)

The default method for all manuscript types.

4.2 Third Reviewer / Arbitration Review

If the reviewer reports a conflict significantly:

  • A third expert reviewer may be appointed
  • Editorial board members may mediate

4.3 Statistical Review

Manuscripts that include advanced statistical analyses may undergo an additional statistical methods review.

4.4 Ethical Review

A designated ethics editor checks papers involving human or animal research.

  1. Review Integrity and Misconduct Handling

JAHS follows COPE’s flowcharts for:

  • Suspected plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Fabrication or falsification
  • Authorship disputes
  • Undisclosed COI
  • AI misuse in manuscripts or reviews

Misconduct may result in:

  • Rejection or retraction
  • Notification of institutions
  • Reviewer removal
  • Author sanctions
  1. Transparency and Appeals

6.1 Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting:

  • A detailed rebuttal
  • Evidence supporting their position

Appeals are evaluated by an independent editor not involved in the original decision.

6.2 Post-Publication Review

Readers may submit letters or comments identifying errors; editors will investigate according to JAHS’s correction and retraction policy.

  1. International Reviewer and Editorial Diversity

JAHS is committed to:

  • Expanding its international reviewer database
  • Ensuring global representation in evaluation
  • Reducing national or institutional reviewer bias
  • Increasing involvement of experts from diverse regions