Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer Review and Editorial Process

The Interamerican Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS) adheres to a rigorous editorial process to guarantee the scientific quality and integrity of the research it publishes. This process ensures transparency, fairness, and objectivity while fostering collaboration between authors, reviewers, and editors. Below is a detailed description of the steps involved.

 

Submission and Initial Review:

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief performs an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and meets the required standards of quality and originality. At this stage, the manuscript may:

  1. Proceed to peer review if it meets the criteria for scientific rigor and relevance.
  2. Be returned to the author(s) for adjustments if minor issues are identified.
  3. Be rejected if it does not fit the scope of the journal or contains fundamental flaws.

If the manuscript is sent for peer review, the Editor-in-Chief assigns an Associate or Executive Editor to the article. This editor will oversee the entire editorial process, ensuring smooth communication between the reviewers, authors, and editorial team and tracking progress at every stage.

 

Double-Blind Peer Review Process:

The IJHS employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to prevent bias. The assigned editor sends the manuscript to two or more external experts with proven expertise in the topic area, based on their academic qualifications and publishing history.

 

Review Criteria:
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • The validity of the methodology and robustness of the data.
  • The novelty and significance of the findings.
  • The clarity and coherence of the writing.

 

Review Outcomes:
Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Acceptance without changes – The manuscript is ready for publication.
  2. Acceptance with minor revisions – Authors must make small adjustments to improve clarity or presentation.
  3. Major revisions required – Significant issues must be addressed, such as improving the methodology or analysis.
  4. Rejection – The manuscript has critical issues that cannot be rectified.

 

Revision and Re-Evaluation:

If revisions are required, the authors receive the reviewers' feedback and are given a deadline to submit a revised version. Along with the revised manuscript, authors must provide a response letter detailing how each comment was addressed. The assigned editor reviews the revisions to determine if the manuscript has adequately addressed the feedback. If needed, the manuscript may be sent for additional peer review.

 

Editorial Decision:

The final decision on the manuscript is made by the assigned Associate or Executive Editor, based on the reviewers' feedback and the quality of the revisions submitted. The possible outcomes are:

  1. Acceptance for publication.
  2. Further revisions required for additional improvement.
  3. Rejection, if the manuscript fails to meet the journal’s standards after revision.

 

Post-Acceptance Process:

After acceptance, the manuscript goes through the following steps:

  1. Proofreading and Layout: The manuscript is checked for typographical and grammatical errors.
  2. Author Review: A proof version is sent to the authors for approval or minor corrections, with a set deadline. If the author does not respond by the deadline, the proof is considered approved as is.
  3. Final Publication: The article is formatted and published online.

 

Processing Timeline:

The editorial process follows a structured timeline to ensure timely publication:

  • Initial Review by Editorial Committee: 30–60 days.
  • Peer Review Process: 90-180 days.
  • Revisions and Reassessment: 30–60 days, depending on the scope of the required changes.
  • Time from Acceptance to Publication: 60–120 days.

 

Anti-Plagiarism Policy and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using Turnitin® software to ensure originality. The Editorial Committee evaluates each case individually and reserves the right to reject any manuscript with signs of plagiarism. In severe cases, the journal may notify the responsible institutions and ban the author(s) from future submissions.

The IJHS strictly adheres to the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, which includes managing conflicts of interest and ensuring confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are required to report any ethical issues, including plagiarism or conflicts of interest, and to withdraw from the process if they recognize the author(s) or face a conflict of interest.