Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Editorial Assessment and Double-Blind Peer Review of NADI: Journal of Health Sciences

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences applies a rigorous editorial assessment and double-blind peer review process to maintain the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution of all articles considered for publication.

In the double-blind peer review process, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, the quality of the peer-review reports, the authors' responses to reviewers, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

Core Principles of Peer Review
✓ Double-blind peer review ✓ Independent scientific assessment
✓ Reviewer confidentiality ✓ Conflict of interest control
✓ Constructive scholarly evaluation ✓ Editorial independence
✓ Research integrity ✓ Transparent editorial decisions

1. Peer Review Model

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences applies a double-blind peer review model. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other throughout the external peer-review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review means:

  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
  • Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers during peer review.
  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific and scholarly merit.
  • The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor.

2. Peer Review Workflow

Step Stage Process
1 Submission The author submits the manuscript and all required metadata through the journal's online submission system.
2 Administrative Screening The editorial team checks manuscript completeness, metadata, formatting, author information, declarations, and conformity with the Author Guidelines.
3 Similarity Screening The manuscript is screened for inappropriate textual similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and other integrity concerns.
4 Editorial Pre-Review The Editor evaluates relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scientific quality, methodology, ethical compliance, and suitability for external peer review.
5 Reviewer Assignment Qualified independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
6 Peer Review Reviewers assess the scientific content and provide substantive, constructive, and evidence-based comments and recommendations.
7 Editorial Decision The Editor assesses reviewer reports and determines whether the manuscript requires revision, should be rejected, or may proceed toward acceptance.
8 Author Revision Authors revise the manuscript and provide responses explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.
9 Re-Evaluation Major revisions may be returned to reviewers. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the Editor when appropriate.
10 Final Decision The Editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, and author revisions.
11 Production Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout, metadata verification, author proofing, and publication.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Not every submitted manuscript is automatically forwarded to external peer review. The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript satisfies the minimum scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements of the journal.

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
  • Completeness of manuscript structure and metadata.
  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and journal template.
  • Clarity and quality of academic language.
  • Adequacy and appropriateness of the research methodology.
  • Ethical clearance where applicable.
  • Informed consent where applicable.
  • Similarity and potential plagiarism.
  • Quality, relevance, and adequacy of references.
  • Required declarations concerning funding, conflicts of interest, author contributions, and use of Artificial Intelligence.

4. Editorial Rejection Before Peer Review

The Editor may reject a manuscript before external peer review when it clearly fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of the journal.

Reasons may include:

  • The manuscript is outside the aims and scope of the journal.
  • The study provides insufficient originality or scientific contribution.
  • The research methodology is fundamentally inadequate.
  • Essential manuscript components are incomplete.
  • The manuscript cannot be scientifically evaluated because of substantial language or presentation problems.
  • Serious plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns are identified.
  • Required ethical approval is absent for research that requires ethical oversight.

5. Number of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the manuscript requires additional methodological or disciplinary expertise, or further independent assessment is necessary before an editorial decision can be made.

6. Selection and Qualification of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, scholarly competence, independence, publication record, relevance to the manuscript topic, and ability to provide substantive scientific evaluation.

  • Expertise relevant to the manuscript topic.
  • Appropriate scholarly publication activity.
  • Academic and professional competence.
  • Independence from the authors and their research.
  • Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Ability to provide substantive and constructive scientific comments.
  • Appropriate research, publication, or peer-review experience.
  • Where possible, institutional and geographical diversity.

7. Reviewer Independence and Conflict of Interest

Peer reviewers must be independent and free from relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the objectivity of their evaluation.

Reviewers must disclose relevant personal, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, or financial conflicts before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should decline the invitation if impartial evaluation cannot reasonably be ensured.

8. Scope of Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the substantive scientific quality of the manuscript. Reviewer comments should be clear, constructive, objective, evidence-based, and relevant to improving the manuscript.

Evaluation Area Reviewer Considerations
Relevance Compatibility with the aims, scope, and readership of the journal.
Originality Novelty, scientific contribution, research gap, and significance of the study.
Introduction Clarity of background, state of the art, research gap, and study objectives.
Methodology Appropriateness, clarity, validity, reproducibility, sampling, instruments, analysis, and ethical considerations.
Results Accuracy, completeness, clarity, and appropriateness of data presentation.
Discussion Depth of interpretation, comparison with previous research, scientific reasoning, implications, and limitations.
Conclusion Consistency with the study objectives, results, analysis, and evidence presented.
References Relevance, scientific quality, adequacy, currency, and consistency of cited literature.
Tables and Figures Accuracy, readability, relevance, quality, and appropriate presentation.
Research Ethics Ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, privacy, confidentiality, and animal research ethics where relevant.

9. Quality of Peer Review

Peer-review reports are expected to contain substantive scientific evaluation rather than only grammatical, typographical, formatting, or layout corrections.

Reviewers should explain scientific weaknesses clearly and provide constructive recommendations whenever possible. The Editor evaluates the quality and relevance of reviewer comments before communicating them to authors.

Personal, discriminatory, offensive, unsupported, coercive, or otherwise inappropriate reviewer comments may be removed or disregarded by the Editor.

10. Review Period

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within a reasonable period determined by the editorial office. Review reminders may be sent when the assigned review has not been completed within the expected period.

When an invited reviewer is unable to complete the review within an appropriate timeframe, the Editor may appoint another qualified reviewer to prevent unnecessary delay in the editorial process.

Important: Scientific quality and integrity of peer review take priority over unnecessarily accelerated publication.

11. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts and all associated peer-review materials must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript information for personal, academic, professional, financial, or commercial advantage.

12. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

AI and Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality and intellectual property of unpublished manuscripts. Artificial Intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

Unpublished manuscripts, figures, tables, datasets, peer-review reports, or confidential editorial information must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems in a manner that may compromise confidentiality, participant privacy, intellectual property, or publication integrity.

13. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations provide scientific advice to the Editor but do not constitute the final editorial decision. The Editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical considerations, and journal standards before determining the outcome.

Decision Description
Accept Submission The manuscript is considered suitable for publication subject to completion of the production process.
Minor Revision Limited revision is required. The revised manuscript may be evaluated directly by the Editor when appropriate.
Major Revision Substantial scientific or methodological revision is required. The revised manuscript may undergo another peer-review round.
Decline Submission The manuscript does not satisfy the scientific, methodological, ethical, editorial, or scope requirements necessary for publication.

14. Differences Between Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are not required to be identical. Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the Editor evaluates the scientific reasoning contained in each report rather than relying solely on the recommendation category.

The Editor may request clarification, perform additional editorial assessment, or appoint another independent reviewer when further expertise is necessary to reach a scientifically justified decision.

15. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors must respond carefully and systematically to comments from the reviewers and editors.

  • Address reviewer comments systematically.
  • Clearly identify substantive changes made to the manuscript.
  • Respond respectfully and scientifically to reviewer concerns.
  • Provide an appropriate scholarly explanation where a requested revision is not adopted.
  • Maintain the accuracy and integrity of all revised research information.

16. Additional Review Rounds

A manuscript may undergo more than one review round when required. Major revisions may be returned to peer reviewers to determine whether significant scientific or methodological concerns have been adequately resolved.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the Editor without another external review when the required changes do not involve substantial scientific or methodological issues.

17. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the responsible Editor based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, peer-review reports, author revisions, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's scope, and conformity with NADI: Journal of Health Sciences standards.

Positive reviewer recommendations do not automatically guarantee acceptance. The Editor remains responsible for determining whether the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and publication standards.

18. Acceptance and Letter of Acceptance

A manuscript is considered formally accepted only after the responsible Editor has completed the required editorial evaluation and issued a final acceptance decision through the journal's editorial system.

Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after the manuscript has legitimately completed the required editorial and peer-review process and has received a formal acceptance decision. Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

19. Post-Acceptance Process

After formal acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

  • Copyediting and language editing.
  • Verification of author names and affiliations.
  • Reference and citation consistency checking.
  • Layout and galley preparation.
  • Author proofreading.
  • Metadata verification.
  • DOI assignment or verification.
  • Scheduling and publication in the appropriate journal issue.

20. Documentation of the Peer Review Process

The journal maintains appropriate editorial records documenting manuscript handling and peer-review activities through its journal management system.

These records may include reviewer assignments, reviewer responses, review reports, editorial decisions, revised manuscripts, author responses, and relevant editorial correspondence.

Peer-review records are treated as confidential and maintained as evidence of editorial accountability and publication integrity.

21. Misconduct During Peer Review

Any attempt to manipulate the peer-review process constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics.

Examples include:
  • False reviewer identities.
  • Fabricated peer-review reports.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Improper attempts to influence editorial decisions.
  • Coercive citation practices.
  • Unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts.
  • Other forms of peer-review manipulation.

Where credible evidence of peer-review manipulation is identified, the journal may reject the manuscript, terminate the review process, withdraw reviewer assignments, investigate the matter, or take other appropriate corrective action.

22. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a significant scientific, procedural, or factual issue affected an editorial decision.

Appeals should provide specific scholarly justification rather than merely expressing disagreement with the decision. Where appropriate, additional editorial evaluation may be undertaken. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Peer Review Process Summary

Submission → Screening → Peer Review → Revision → Editorial Decision → Publication
Review Model Double-Blind Peer Review
External Reviewers At least two independent reviewers
Initial Screening Administrative and editorial assessment
Similarity Screening Conducted as part of the editorial evaluation
Major Revision May undergo another peer-review round
Minor Revision May be evaluated directly by the Editor
Final Decision Responsible Editor
Review Documentation Maintained confidentially within the journal management system

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences is committed to ensuring that peer review is conducted objectively, independently, confidentially, transparently, and according to appropriate scholarly standards. Publication speed, financial considerations, institutional relationships, or other non-academic interests must not compromise the scientific quality or integrity of the peer-review and editorial decision-making process.

Peer Review Ethical Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

https://publicationethics.org/