Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Review Type and Model

The JMHM employs a rigorous blind peer review process to ensure the good standards of scholarly quality and integrity. Under this model, both reviewer and author identities remain confidential throughout the evaluation process, eliminating potential bias and ensuring objective assessment based solely on scientific merit.

 

Editorial Workflow

Initial Editorial Screening (5-10 workdays)

  • All submissions undergo immediate plagiarism screening using advanced detection software
  • Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors conduct preliminary assessment for scope alignment, basic quality standards, and adherence to submission guidelines
  • Manuscripts failing initial screening are promptly rejected with constructive feedback

Reviewer Selection and Invitation (3-5 work days)

  • Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers from our international editorial board and external reviewer database
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, interdisciplinary competence, and absence of conflicts of interestInvitation emails include manuscript abstracts (anonymized) and expected review timeline

Peer Review Evaluation (4-8weeks)

  • Reviewers receive complete anonymized manuscripts with standardized evaluation forms
  • Assessment criteria include: originality, methodological rigor, interdisciplinary significance, clarity of presentation, ethical considerations, and contribution to field knowledge
  • Reviewers provide detailed written reports with specific recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection

Editorial Decision Making (2-3weeks)

  • Associate Editors compile reviewer reports and provide independent recommendations
  • Editor-in-Chief makes final editorial decisions based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment
  • Decision categories include: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject

Author Response and Revision (varies)

  • Authors receive comprehensive feedback including anonymized reviewer reports and editorial comments
  • Revised submissions must include detailed response letters addressing each reviewer concern
  • Major revisions undergo additional peer review; minor revisions receive editorial review only

Final Decision and Publication (3-4weeks)

  • Satisfactorily revised manuscripts receive final acceptance
  • Accepted articles proceed to professional editing, formatting, and online publication
  • Authors receive proofs for final approval before publication

Quality Assurance Measures

  • Reviewer Training: Regular training sessions for editorial board members on interdisciplinary evaluation standards
  • Review Quality Monitoring: Editorial team monitors reviewer performance and feedback quality
  • Conflict of Interest Management: Strict protocols ensure reviewers declare and avoid conflicts of interest

Ethical Standards

Our peer review process adheres to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and maintains the highest standards of research integrity, confidentiality, and fair evaluation throughout all stages of manuscript assessment.