Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only a good research paper is published. We assign two to three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue. All manuscripts are following the procedure outlined below:

Initial Screening

• IJOHMN follows a policy of initial screening to evaluate manuscripts before sending them for full peer review.
• During this screening, each manuscript undergoes assessment for plagiarism, grammar, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
• Manuscripts that do not meet these initial criteria may be rejected during this stage.
• The initial screening process typically takes 5-7 business days.

Peer Review Policy

• Peer review is a vital process through which experts evaluate scholarly works and assess their content.
• The objective of peer review is to ensure and uphold the high-quality standards of our publishing house.
• All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by our Editorial Staff, experts in their respective fields.
• Only those manuscripts meeting our standards are selected for peer review and, subsequently, for publication.
• Peer reviewers are experts in relevant fields and are not part of the journal's editorial staff.
• IJEL follows a double-blind peer review process, where both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to each other.
• The peer review process plays a crucial role in selecting research work of merit for publication.

 Double-Blind Review

• IJOHMN follows a policy of initial screening to evaluate manuscripts before sending them for full peer review.
• During this screening, each manuscript undergoes assessment for plagiarism, grammar, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
• Manuscripts that do not meet these initial criteria may be rejected during this stage.
• The initial screening process typically takes 5-7 business days.

In the broad spectrum, at first read-through reviewers will be assessing the author(s) argument construction, the clarity of the language, and the content. They question themselves for the following:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
• Is the argument well constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?

They may also consider the following:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate, and clear?

 Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues:

• Are there any major flaws?
• If the experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
• Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practices and meet ethical standards?
• Has a similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language, and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues?

 The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:

• Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labeled?

Possible outcomes of peer review

The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

• The journal's aims and audience.
• The state of knowledge in the field.
• The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal.

Reviewers forward the review report to the Editor in chief, who will make a final decision to accept or reject the article. Once the Editor in Chief  makes the decision on the manuscripts presented for review, the decision will be one of the following:

• Accept
• Accept with minor revision
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, we will send the Acceptance Letter, and publication agreement to the author along with an APC link. After receiving APC, we will forward the final proofread manuscript to the author for approval through email. At this point, the author can send some minor suggestions/corrections in terms of the formatting of the manuscript.

We will resend the proofread manuscript for final approval. Once the final approval is received from the author,  the manuscript will be sent for the final publication process.

If an author is asked to revise their manuscript and the author sends us an updated manuscript, it will be considered a new submission in terms of initial screening but the updated manuscript will be sent to the same reviewers to review again.

The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision of rejection of the manuscript and conveys it to the author.

Duration of Review Process at IJOHMN