Peer Review Process

The journal follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific value of published work. The journal operates a double-blind peer review system in accordance with COPE and ICMJE recommendations.

Initial Editorial Screening

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of HJBHS.
  • Compliance with submission guidelines and journal policies.
  • Ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening using Turnitin (similarity threshold should be less than 19%, excluding references).
  • Basic scholarly quality, including language, structure, and referencing style.

Only manuscripts meeting these criteria proceed to peer review.

Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts (one national and one international) selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest (COPE and ICMJE).
  • Diversity to ensure balanced and unbiased evaluation.

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive feedback, maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and comply with COPE reviewer guidelines.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

  • Originality and contribution to biomedical and health sciences.
  • Methodological rigor and validity of results.
  • Clarity and coherence of presentation.
  • Ethical compliance, including informed consent and data transparency.

Reviews must be constructive, specific, and submitted within the assigned timeframe.

Peer Review Process and Editorial Decision

  • Reviewer Recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  • Revisions: Authors must respond point by point and resubmit within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed.
  • Final Decision: The editorial team makes the final decision, taking into account reviewer input and ethical considerations.

Double-Blind Review and Editorial Oversight

Author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the review process to ensure impartiality. Editors oversee the process to ensure fairness, address ethical concerns, and prevent manipulation by verifying reviewer credentials and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Editorial Workflow before Publication

Submission Stage

  • Online submission via OJS with required metadata and declarations.
  • Initial checks for scope, guidelines, and ethics.

Review Stage

  • Double-blind peer review by two reviewers.
  • Author revisions based on reviewer feedback.

Copyediting Stage

  • Language, style, and technical editing.
  • Final author approval.

Production Stage

  • Formatting and layout design.
  • DOI assignment.
  • Proof review and issue scheduling.

Transparency, Timeliness, and Ethics

  • Peer review policies are publicly available.
  • Standard review timeframe: 4–6 weeks.
  • Reviewers may receive anonymized certificates.
  • An independent editorial panel handles the appeals.
  • Post-publication scholarly discussion is encouraged.

HJBHS is committed to publishing high-quality, ethical, and impactful research through a structured OJS-based peer review system.