Peer-review Policy

Health Benchmark Journal Peer Review Policy

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is fundamental to ensuring the quality, credibility, and scientific integrity of the articles published in Health Benchmark Journal. The objective is to provide fair, constructive, and timely feedback to authors and to assist the Editor in making publication decisions.

  1. Review Process

2.1 Initial Submission

  • Manuscripts are submitted via the journal’s online submission system.
  • The Editor performs an initial screening to assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and adherence to submission guidelines.

2.2 Assignment of Reviewers

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

2.3 Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share any information from the manuscript with others without the Editor's permission.

2.4 Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide an unbiased, constructive, and thorough evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses in the study design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation.
  • Suggest improvements and offer clear recommendations for the manuscript’s improvement.
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe, typically within three weeks of receiving the invitation to review.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Significance: The novelty and importance of the research question and findings.
  • Quality of Research: The robustness of the methodology, data analysis, and overall scientific rigor.
  • Clarity and Presentation: The coherence and clarity of the writing, organization, and presentation of the manuscript.
  • Relevance: The relevance of the research to the field and its potential impact on practice or further research.
  • Ethical Considerations: Adherence to ethical standards, including the treatment of subjects and the integrity of data.
  1. Types of Decisions

Based on reviewers' comments, the Editor may decide to:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as it stands.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes, and the revised version will be accepted without further review.
  • Moderate Revision: The manuscript requires more substantial changes, and the revised version will undergo another round of review.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant changes and will undergo another round of review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and will not be published.
  1. Communication with Authors
  • Authors will receive constructive feedback from the reviewers and the Editor’s decision, including specific suggestions for improvement.
  • In the case of revisions, authors are expected to address all comments and resubmit the revised manuscript promptly.
  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the peer review process:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They must not share, discuss, or disclose any information from the manuscript with others without the Editor's permission. Any individual consulted must also adhere to this confidentiality requirement.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might prevent them from providing an unbiased review. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the review invitation.
  • Ethical Compliance: Reviewers should follow the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  • Acknowledgment of Assistance: If reviewers seek assistance from a colleague or another expert during the review process, they must:
    • Inform the Editor and obtain approval.
    • Acknowledge the name and contact details of the person who assisted them in their review report.
    • Ensure that the assisting person also abides by the peer review policy, particularly maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript and adhering to ethical standards.
  • Reporting Ethical Issues: Reviewers should report any suspected ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or any form of research misconduct, to the Editor immediately.
  1. Anonymity

Health Benchmark Journal follows a double-blind review process:

  • Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.
  • Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers.
  1. Reviewer Acknowledgment

The journal acknowledges the vital contribution of reviewers. Reviewers' efforts are recognized annually through a published list of reviewers and certificates of appreciation.

  1. Appeals Process

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected can appeal the decision by submitting a detailed letter of appeal. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor and, if necessary, additional reviewers.

  1. Timeliness and Efficiency
  • Health Benchmark Journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication.
  • Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within three weeks. If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should notify the Editor promptly.