Peer Review

All submissions to the Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality and validity of the published research. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that the authors and the reviewers are anonymous. The review process is carried out by experts in the relevant fields of study, who evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

1. Initial evaluation: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board will conduct an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the scope and focus of the journal and adheres to the publication conditions. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further review. The manuscript with a higher than 15% similarity will be rejected in this stage. The editorial office will check the article formatting and citation styles and adhere to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are unmet, the manuscript will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes approval, it will be sent to reviewers.
2. Assignment of reviewers: The editorial board will select at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study and have experience in the research area the manuscript covers. The reviewers will be blinded to the identity of the authors, and the authors will be blinded to the identity of the reviewers. The listing of the names of the authors, acknowledgments, and references to author contributions must be removed from the manuscript and posted in the Title page file. The assigned editor will then send invitations to reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with differing institutions from those of the corresponding authors. Moreover, reviewers will consider the invitation according to their own scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. Our journal is committed to assigning reviewers within three weeks from submission of manuscript.
3. Review process: The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance to the field of study. They will provide constructive feedback to the authors to help improve the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript. The review process may take 1 months
4. Decision: The editor-in-chief will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request a revision of the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and the manuscript's adherence to the publication conditions. If the comments/responses of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional individual to review the manuscript before making the final decision. The academic editor will send a decision (with rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author via the online system, along with any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers. As our journal adopts the double-blind, peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions remain anonymous.
5. Revision process: If the manuscript is accepted with revision, the authors will be asked to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit it for further review. Re-submitted material must include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter. The author is usually given two weeks (for minor revisions) and four weeks (for major revisions) to revise the manuscript. The major revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers, who will evaluate whether the revisions adequately address their feedback. For minor revisions, the subsequent review process may not be necessary.
6. Publication: Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the authors will be asked to submit a final version of the manuscript, which will be copyedited and formatted for publication in the journal. It normally takes about 3-4 months from submission to publication.

This peer review process will ensure that all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Current Health Sciences are evaluated based on the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct and that only the highest quality research is published.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

What is the responsibility of a peer reviewer? Peer reviewers are responsible for assessing the quality of manuscripts that will be accepted into the journal. Their main task is to critically evaluate manuscripts based on their specialty as well as provide constructive feedback to the authors. Additionally, peer reviewers are also expected to assess the relevance, originality, strength, and weaknesses of the manuscript. What are the procedures that need to be taken? Reviewers will receive an email requesting to review a given manuscript. A link will be embedded in this email, allowing you to access information: Deadline and Abstract. Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that: The manuscript is within their area of expertise. There is no conflicting interest (e.g., being an author of the manuscript, funds the research, etc). They can commit to providing a critical review of the manuscript within the given time. Reviewers must then notify the submission editor as to whether he/she will undertake the review. Click “Will do the review” if you agree to review the manuscript in the given time or “Unable to do review” to refer the manuscript to another reviewer. Once you agree to do the review, consult the reviewer guideline below. Click file names to download and review the full manuscript and declare whether you have any competing interest with regard to the research Reviewers assess the manuscript and complete the review form within the given time. Reviewers must select a recommendation for the manuscript (Accepted/ Accepted with Revision/ Rejected) and submit the review to complete the review process.

What ethical regulations must I abide to?

Reviewers should only accept to review a manuscript that they can confidently say they will be able to critically review and return in a timely manner.

Confidentiality	Reviewers must ensure that all review processes are kept confidential. Any details of the manuscript (e.g., content, review comments) should remain confidential during and after the review process.
Plagiarism	Reviewers must not use any information or data obtained from the reviewed manuscript for their own personal use. Should reviewers find that the reviewed manuscript substantially copy another work, reviewers are expected to immediately let the editor know.
Objectiveness	Peer reviewers are expected to uphold an objective and honest view during the review process. They should not be influenced by: The origin of the manuscript The religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the author Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the author.
Timeliness	Reviewers should only accept to review a manuscript that they can confidently say they will be able to critically review and return in a timely manner.
Conflict of Interest	Before accepting to review a given manuscript, reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.