Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process for the Health Innovation Journal (HIJ)

The Health Innovation Journal (HIJ) adheres to the highest standards of scientific integrity and impartiality, embodied through its double-blind peer review system. This foundational process maintains the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, aiming to remove bias and uphold submission quality. HIJ follows the peer-review principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Initial Screening

Upon manuscript submission, HIJ performs a preliminary assessment for alignment with the journal’s scope and adherence to journal standards. Only manuscripts that meet these initial criteria are advanced to the peer review phase.

Selection of Reviewers

HIJ engages at least two independent experts for a detailed review, selected based on their expertise in the relevant domain and their lack of conflicts of interest. This careful selection is vital for an unbiased and thorough evaluation.

Reviewer Instructions

Reviewers, adhering to international standards, are expected to:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Provide constructive, honest, and respectful feedback within the designated timeframe.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest that might affect their review impartially.
  • Ensure that their review is independent and free from external influence.

Review Process Details

  • Feedback and Revisions: Reviewers’ feedback may suggest revisions. Authors are required to address these comments and submit revised manuscripts within a specified timeframe.
  • Re-review: Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for confirmation that concerns were adequately addressed.
  • Final Decision: The editorial decision, based on reviewers' feedback, is final and binding. Accepted manuscripts undergo further editing for clarity and scientific accuracy.

Preventing Peer Review Manipulation

To protect the integrity of the review process, HIJ:

  • Utilizes a variety of sources to identify potential reviewers, ensuring they have no recent collaborations or conflicts of interest with the authors.
  • Carefully scrutinizes reviewer suggestions from authors, confirming identities through professional or academic affiliations.
  • Does not use reviewer recommendations from authors unless independently verified.
  • Remains vigilant for signs of fraudulent peer review, implementing additional reviews and verification as necessary.

Double-Blind Peer Review & Editorial Policy

  •