The Journal of Community Medicine and Health Sciences (JCMHS) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and trustworthy scientific work. This process complies with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

All manuscripts are evaluated objectively, and editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, relevance, and originality of the work.

1. Overview of the Peer Review System

JCMHS employs a double-blind review model, where both the reviewer and author identities remain confidential. This model ensures fairness and minimizes potential bias related to geography, gender, or institutional affiliation.

2. Workflow Summary

Submission: Authors submit manuscripts via the online submission system. The editorial office performs an initial check for completeness, formatting, and adherence to ethical policies.
Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor screens each submission for scope, originality, and potential ethical concerns.
Reviewer Assignment: Eligible reviewers with appropriate expertise are selected. Typically, two independent reviewers are invited; a third reviewer may be added if opinions diverge.
Double-Blind Review: Reviewers provide feedback and recommendations within 14–21 days through the journal’s platform.
Decision: The editor makes a final decision (accept, revise, or reject) based on reviewer reports and the manuscript’s merit.
Revision and Resubmission: Authors revise and resubmit their manuscripts within a given timeframe (usually 10–20 days).
Final Acceptance: After satisfactory revisions, the paper undergoes plagiarism check, proofreading, and formatting before publication.

3. Types of Peer Review

Type	Description	Used by JCMHS
Single-Blind	Reviewers know the authors’ identity; authors do not know reviewers.	No
Double-Blind	Both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other.	Yes (standard model)
Open Review	Both parties know each other’s identities and reports may be published.	No (only in pilot studies upon request)

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

After submission, the editorial office checks for scope, compliance with author guidelines, ethical approvals, plagiarism, and completeness of metadata. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be returned to authors for correction before review.

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are chosen based on:

Subject-area expertise and recent publications.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Commitment to timely and constructive reviews.
Previous experience with academic peer review.

6. Review Timeline

Standard review duration is 14 days from the date of acceptance of the review invitation. Reviewers may request an extension if required. The editorial office monitors delays to ensure a smooth publication cycle.

7. Reviewer Instructions

Reviewers are requested to provide a structured report covering:

Summary of the work and its significance.
Evaluation of methodology and statistical soundness.
Assessment of ethical compliance and originality.
Major and minor recommendations for improvement.
Final recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

8. Ethical Principles in Review

Reviewers must adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. They must maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts, and avoid using unpublished data for personal research.

9. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest. Examples include collaborations, financial ties, or institutional relationships. In such cases, the manuscript is reassigned to another editor or reviewer.

10. Decision Categories

Accept: Manuscript meets all quality and ethical standards.
Minor Revision: Requires small clarifications or formatting corrections.
Major Revision: Needs substantial methodological or analytical changes.
Reject: Not suitable for publication due to scientific or ethical shortcomings.

11. Editorial Decision Communication

All editorial decisions are communicated transparently via email or the online submission platform. Reviewer comments are anonymized before being shared with the authors.

12. Revision and Resubmission

Authors must respond to each reviewer comment in a detailed “Response to Reviewers” document. Editors verify that all concerns are adequately addressed before acceptance.

13. Post-Acceptance Checks

Accepted manuscripts undergo plagiarism verification through iThenticate, copy-editing, and formatting before publication. The final proofs are shared with authors for final approval.

14. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All stages of peer review are confidential. Data shared during review must not be disclosed or reused. The editorial system complies with GDPR and ensures secure handling of all author and reviewer information.

15. Reviewer Recognition

JCMHS acknowledges the valuable contributions of reviewers through annual certificates, public acknowledgments (with consent), and eligibility for reviewer-of-the-year awards.

16. Appeals and Disputes

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification within 15 days of receiving the decision letter. Appeals are reviewed independently by a senior editor or the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals are handled confidentially and fairly.

17. Ethical Misconduct Detection

Suspected cases of plagiarism, data manipulation, or duplicate submission are handled in accordance with COPE flowcharts. The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts and notify affiliated institutions when misconduct is confirmed.

18. Post-Publication Peer Review

JCMHS welcomes post-publication comments, corrections, or re-evaluations that help maintain scientific accuracy. Readers may submit letters or online comments subject to editorial moderation.

19. Transparency in Review Statistics

To promote transparency, the journal annually publishes summary statistics, including acceptance rates, average review times, and reviewer demographics. Individual reviewer identities remain confidential.

20. Editorial Independence

The editorial team operates independently of commercial or political influence. The publisher supports editorial functions but does not interfere with content decisions.

21. Steps in the Peer Review Process

Stage	Responsible Party	Approximate Time
Submission Verification	Editorial Office	1–2 days
Initial Screening	Section Editor	3–5 days
Reviewer Invitation	Handling Editor	2 days
Peer Review	Reviewers	14 days
Decision Communication	Editor-in-Chief	2 days
Revision and Re-evaluation	Authors + Editor	10–20 days
Final Acceptance	Editor-in-Chief	1–2 days

22. Quality Assurance

The editorial office regularly audits reviewer reports and editorial decisions to ensure fairness, timeliness, and adherence to the journal’s ethical framework. Review quality feedback helps enhance editorial standards continuously.

23. Data Availability and Reproducibility

Reviewers and editors encourage authors to deposit datasets and supplementary materials in reputable repositories. This promotes reproducibility and transparency in scientific findings.

24. Compliance with International Standards

COPE Core Practices for ethical peer review.
ICMJE Recommendations for editorial conduct.
DOAJ and OASPA guidelines for transparency and open access.
GDPR for data privacy and confidentiality.

25. Contact and Support

Queries related to the peer review process may be directed to:

Email: [email protected]
Subject: “Peer Review Inquiry – [Manuscript ID]”
Response Time: within 3–5 business days

“The strength of science lies not just in discovery, but in the rigor of peer review that validates it.”