Peer Review Policy

The Clinical and Health Research Exploration journal is committed to ensuring the highest standards of quality in scientific publishing. The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of our commitment to publishing high-quality, reliable, and scientifically rigorous research. This policy outlines the principles and procedures that guide the peer review process, ensuring transparency, fairness, and ethical integrity in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication.

2. Types of Peer Review:

The journal follows a Triple-blind peer review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This method is implemented to eliminate bias and ensure impartiality in the evaluation of manuscripts.

  • Triple-Blind Review: Both the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Authors are not aware of the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know who the authors are.

3. Review Process:

The peer review process for Clinical and Health Research Exploration involves the following steps:

  1. Initial Manuscript Submission:
    • Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal’s submission system. Manuscripts must comply with the journal’s submission guidelines, including formatting, referencing style, and any required supplementary materials.
  2. Initial Editorial Screening:
    • Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess whether the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal and adheres to the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors or rejected without peer review.
  3. Assignment of Reviewers:
    • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the editor assigns two or more reviewers with expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, qualifications, and experience in the field.
  4. Peer Review:
    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, scientific rigor, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field of clinical and health research. They are asked to provide detailed feedback, which may include recommendations for improving the manuscript.
    • Reviewers are also required to assess the ethical standards of the study, including patient consent, data integrity, and the appropriate handling of health-related data.
    • The reviewers’ feedback includes one of the following recommendations:
      • Accept as is: No revisions needed.
      • Minor revisions: Small changes that do not affect the main content.
      • Major revisions: Substantial changes needed, with a resubmission required.
      • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
  5. Revisions:
    • If the manuscript is sent back for revisions, authors are expected to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit it. The authors must provide a response letter detailing how they have addressed the reviewers' comments and made the necessary revisions.
  6. Final Decision:
    • After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor reviews the changes and may send it back for further revisions or forward it for final approval. Once all concerns are addressed, the editor makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication.
  7. Publication:
    • Once a manuscript is accepted, it is processed for publication in an upcoming issue of the journal. Authors are notified of the publication schedule, and the final version of the manuscript is made publicly available on the journal’s website.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential. They should not share the manuscript or any part of it with others without the express permission of the editor.
  • Impartiality: Reviewers should provide an unbiased and objective evaluation of the manuscript, free from personal or professional conflicts of interest.
  • Expertise: Reviewers must have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. They are expected to provide constructive and detailed feedback that will help improve the quality of the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers must complete their review within the designated timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editor as soon as possible to avoid delays in the review process.

5. Author Responsibilities:

  • Originality and Ethics: Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript is original, properly cited, and does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. They must ensure ethical standards in the research, including obtaining informed consent, and adhering to the appropriate ethical guidelines for health-related studies.
  • Transparency: Authors must provide accurate and clear descriptions of their research methods, results, and conclusions. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed at the time of submission.
  • Response to Reviews: Authors must respond to reviewer comments in a transparent and constructive manner. If a reviewer’s suggestions are not followed, authors must provide a clear explanation as to why they were not incorporated.

6. Conflict of Interest:

All reviewers and authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest may include financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence the impartiality of the review or the research. If a conflict of interest is identified, it will be addressed by the editor, and the reviewer or author may be recused from the process.

7. Ethical Considerations:

  • Plagiarism Detection: The journal uses plagiarism detection software to check all submitted manuscripts for similarity to existing published works. Manuscripts found to contain significant plagiarism will be rejected, and the authors may be banned from submitting future manuscripts.
  • Research Ethics: The journal adheres to international research ethics guidelines, including those governing the use of human and animal subjects. Authors must provide documentation of ethical approval from an appropriate ethics review board or committee when applicable.

8. Appeals Process:

If an author disagrees with the final decision, they may appeal the decision by submitting a formal appeal to the editorial team. The editor will review the appeal, and if necessary, the manuscript will be reassigned to new reviewers for a second opinion. The final decision will be made by the editor-in-chief.