Peer Reviewer Process

  1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting the manuscript to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). 

  1. Editorial Office Assessment

All submitted papers are initially assessed by the editorial team of Health EducaziONE Journal. The editor evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s focus and scope. The composition and formatting of the paper are reviewed for adherence to the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure all required sections and stylistic elements are present.

At this stage, a preliminary quality assessment is also conducted, including a review for any major methodological flaws. Manuscripts that pass this initial evaluation will be screened using Turnitin to detect potential plagiarism before proceeding to the peer review process.

  1. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and determines if it is sufficiently original, interesting, and significant to merit publication. If the manuscript does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected without further review.

  1. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to reviewers (also known as referees) who are considered suitable based on their expertise, relevance to the manuscript’s subject matter, and absence of any conflict of interest.

The peer review process at Journal of Health EducaziONE involves a community of experts in medical and health professions education who are qualified to provide fair and objective evaluations. Impartiality is ensured through the double-blind peer review system employed by the journal, in which the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers anonymously.

  1. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide whether to accept or decline the invitation. If declining, the editor may request that the potential reviewer suggest an alternative expert who may be suitable to conduct the review.

  1. Review is Conducted

Reviewers allocate time to read the manuscript thoroughly, often multiple times. The first reading provides an initial impression of the work. If major issues are identified at this stage, the reviewer may recommend rejection without further analysis. Otherwise, the reviewer continues with one or more detailed readings, taking notes to compile a comprehensive, point-by-point evaluation.

The completed review is then submitted to the journal along with a recommendation: to accept, reject, or request revisions. Revision requests are typically classified as either major or minor and must be addressed before the paper is reconsidered.

  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and the handling editor carefully consider all returned reviews before making a final decision. If the reviewers’ opinions differ significantly, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide a third, independent assessment before reaching a decision.

  1. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the corresponding author, which includes any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer feedback is shared anonymously, allowing the author to make the necessary revisions and responses. At the same time, reviewers are notified of the outcome of the manuscript they reviewed.

  1. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper proceeds to the copy-editing stage. If the article is rejected or returned to the author for major or minor revisions, the handling editor will provide constructive feedback from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. The author is expected to revise the paper according to the reviewers’ comments and the editor’s instructions.

Once revisions are completed, the author must resubmit the revised manuscript to the editor. If the paper was returned for revision, the revised version may be sent back to the original reviewers for reassessment—unless the reviewers have opted out of further participation. In cases where only minor changes are requested, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up review.

If the editor is satisfied with the revisions, the manuscript will be accepted. Drawing on feedback from the peer review process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision. The entire review and decision process typically takes about 1 to 2 weeks.

Accepted papers will be published online and made freely available as downloadable PDF files.