Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

All submitted papers will undergo a peer review process. The journal utilizes a double-blind peer review method to uphold high standards of quality and credibility. Peer review, also known as refereeing, involves independent experts in the same research field evaluating and providing critical feedback on submitted manuscripts. This collaborative process not only empowers authors to enhance their work but also allows the editor to confidently assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal.

All submitted manuscripts undergo a pre-screening process conducted by the managing editor to ensure they align with the journal’s scope. Thereafter, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a manuscript editor for initial screening. The assigned editor assesses whether the submissions meet the editorial standards and expectations of the journal. Only those articles that demonstrate potential to meet the journal’s requirements proceed to formal evaluation, which helps streamline the review process for both authors and peer reviewers. Submissions that are deemed uninteresting or unsuitable are promptly discarded by the editor without external review.

For articles deemed potentially engaging to readers, they are forwarded for formal evaluation, typically reviewed by one reviewer (subject-area expert) in a double-blind review process. In certain cases, two reviewers may be selected if additional insights are necessary. The editor then makes a decision based on the feedback and recommendations provided by the reviewer(s) and communicates the same to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal makes the final decision regarding the acceptance and publication of the paper. However, editors should refrain from reversing publication decisions unless serious issues are identified.

Any complaints about editorial decisions must be addressed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board. 

Editors’ Responsibilities

Alongside their general responsibilities—such as enhancing the journal’s quality and integrity, addressing the needs of authors and readers, and promoting academic research—editors are committed to implementing best practices in order to effectively manage the following responsibilities:

1. The acceptance or rejection of a paper for publication should be fair and unbiased, without considering the identity of the authors or their institution. This includes factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
2. Decisions should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the journal’s aims.
3. Ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
4. Adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.
5. Guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
6. Critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
7. Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.
8. Accountability and responsibility for everything published in the journal.

If an article is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief or any of the editors, one of the editors appointed by the Managing Editor will lead the review process. This editor will then communicate the decision regarding the article to the Managing Editor or the Editorial Board. Anonymity will be preserved throughout the entire process.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewing a manuscript by researchers is a significant responsibility and privilege. The International Journal of Technology, Health, and Sustainability implements a rigorous single-blind peer-review process that is swift, equitable, and guarantees the publication of high-quality articles.

We invite our reviewers to dive into the following key points and steps for a thorough and insightful evaluation:

1. Review the manuscript constructively and provide detailed comments to help the authors improve their work. 
2. Make recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal. 
3. Disclose to the editor any potential conflicts of interest concerning the authors or the content of the manuscript you are reviewing. 
4. Report any instances of duplication. 
5. Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. 
6. Not to communicate directly with the authors. 
7. Not to pass the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.

Points 5 to 7 apply to invited reviewers who choose to decline the review invitation.

The reviewer must focus on the following critical elements while conducting the manuscript review:

• Novelty,
• Originality,
• Scientific reliability
• Ethical considerations,
• Structure and formatting of the submitted article and its compliance with the authors’ guidelines,
• Appropriateness of references, and
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Confidentiality

• Editors and editorial staff are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of all submitted manuscript information during the pre- and post-publication processes.
• Such information will be shared only with the corresponding author, co-authors, reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher.
• Editors will ensure that all materials remain strictly confidential throughout the review process.
• The journal follows a single blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities and affiliations of the reviewers and authors remain confidential. Moreover, the articles are sent to the reviewers without the information of the authors and affiliations.
• If an article is not accepted or published in our journal, the details will not be made public and will be deleted from our system after one year.
• In cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct, the journal reserves the right to disclose material to third parties (e.g., authors’ institutions, funders, regulatory organizations, and other journals).