Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Community Medicine and Health Sciences (JCMHS) maintains a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of academic quality, originality, and ethical integrity. The journal adheres to international best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process ensures the credibility, transparency, and accuracy of scientific work. It helps editors make informed decisions and assists authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts. The process serves three primary objectives:

• Assessing the validity and originality of submitted work.
• Enhancing manuscript clarity and rigor through constructive feedback.
• Safeguarding scientific integrity and ethical publication standards.

2. Review Model

JCMHS follows a double-blind review system, wherein:

• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
• All communication occurs through the editorial office via the OJS platform.

3. Review Workflow Overview

1. Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor performs an initial evaluation for scope relevance, plagiarism, and compliance with submission guidelines.
2. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable reviewers are selected based on expertise, recent publications, and absence of conflicts of interest.
3. Double-Blind Review: Reviewers assess manuscripts anonymously using a standardized evaluation form.
4. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, the editor recommends one of four outcomes: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
5. Revision & Re-Review: Revised manuscripts may be re-sent to reviewers for confirmation of improvements.
6. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.

4. Review Timeframe

JCMHS values efficiency and transparency. Review timelines are as follows:

• Initial screening: within 5–7 business days.
• Peer review: within 14–21 days after reviewer assignment.
• Decision communication: within 30 days of submission, depending on reviewer availability.

Authors are notified promptly of editorial decisions through the OJS platform.

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are chosen based on:

• Relevant subject expertise and publication record.
• Absence of any potential conflict of interest.
• Prior peer-review experience or demonstrated academic credentials.
• Diversity in geography and institutional affiliation to promote unbiased evaluation.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
• Maintain confidentiality regarding manuscripts under review.
• Avoid personal or professional bias.
• Report ethical issues such as plagiarism or data manipulation.
• Refrain from using unpublished data for personal advantage.

7. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors must ensure fair and ethical peer review by:

• Assigning reviewers based solely on expertise.
• Maintaining reviewer anonymity and confidentiality.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest with any author or institution.
• Ensuring consistency and transparency in editorial decisions.

8. Conflict of Interest Management

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, academic, or personal relationships that may influence judgment. The editorial office maintains a conflict-of-interest registry to prevent bias in the review process.

9. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

JCMHS enforces ethical standards guided by COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Unethical behavior such as breach of confidentiality, delay, or coercive citation practices is strictly prohibited.

10. Decision Categories

11. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and reviewer communications are handled confidentially through the OJS platform. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process. The editorial office ensures secure recordkeeping of all reviews and decisions.

12. Review Anonymity and Transparency

JCMHS maintains double-blind anonymity throughout peer review. Reviewer names are disclosed only upon mutual consent post-publication (e.g., for acknowledgment). The journal may adopt transparent peer review in select cases, where review histories are published alongside the article.

13. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge their contributions, reviewers receive:

• Official certificates of review upon request.
• Recognition in the annual “Reviewer Acknowledgment” section on the journal website.
• Eligibility for editorial board nomination after consistent ethical performance.

14. Handling of Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation within 30 days of receiving the decision letter. Appeals are independently reviewed by a senior editor not involved in the original decision. Complaints about reviewer behavior or editorial conduct are handled confidentially in accordance with COPE procedures.

15. Misconduct and Reviewer Ethics Violations

If unethical review behavior is detected — including plagiarism, breach of confidentiality, or conflict of interest — the reviewer will be removed from the database, and the institution may be notified. Misconduct cases are logged for internal review.

16. Editorial Quality Assurance

Every editorial decision undergoes internal quality checks to ensure consistency and fairness. The editorial office regularly audits peer-review timelines, reviewer feedback, and decision integrity using COPE-based quality metrics.

17. Peer Review and Data Transparency

Authors are encouraged to share datasets, code, and protocols to promote reproducibility. Reviewers are instructed to verify whether submitted data and methods align with the stated research outcomes.

18. Double-Blind Review in Practice

Under double-blind review, identifying author details are removed before sending manuscripts to reviewers. Corresponding authors are instructed to anonymize self-references (e.g., “Author, 2024”) to ensure impartiality. Reviewers, likewise, remain unidentified throughout the process.

19. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Peer Review

AI or automated tools may assist editors in plagiarism checks, grammar screening, or reference validation but cannot replace human judgment. Reviewers are forbidden from using AI-generated summaries or opinions to form conclusions about a manuscript’s quality.

20. Peer Review Process Summary

21. Ethical Oversight in Review

JCMHS follows COPE’s Core Practices for ethical oversight, ensuring that peer review remains transparent, confidential, and free from discrimination based on gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation.

22. Post-Publication Review

Readers may submit post-publication comments or critiques via the journal’s correspondence section. Valid concerns may prompt a correction, clarification, or post-publication peer review. This ensures continuous academic dialogue and accountability.

23. Peer Review and Editorial Independence

The publisher does not influence editorial or reviewer decisions. Editors are solely responsible for evaluating manuscripts based on scientific merit, relevance, and ethical compliance. Any attempt at influence is documented and reported.

24. Confidential Archiving of Reviews

All peer-review records, including reviewer comments, decisions, and correspondence, are securely archived in the OJS system for at least five years for audit and accountability purposes.

25. Annual Review Policy Evaluation

The Peer Review Policy is reviewed annually to incorporate technological updates, ethical guidelines, and emerging best practices. Feedback from editors, reviewers, and authors informs these revisions.

“Peer review is not a gatekeeping mechanism — it is a process of mentorship and trust that upholds the scientific credibility of every article we publish.”