Editorial Process

I. Initial Check

Editorial Review

The editorial office checks the manuscript for adherence to guidelines.

Content Similarity and Author Verification

The manuscript undergoes plagiarism detection and author verification to ensure authenticity.

Scope Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope.

II. Peer Review

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts are assigned to relevant members of the Editorial Board or external experts based on the topic.

Conflict of Interest Check

Reviewers are screened to ensure no conflict of interest with the authors. If a conflict arises, the reviewer is replaced.

Review Process

At least two (or sometimes three) reviewers provide feedback, which is then sent to the handling editor, and finally to the Editor-in-Chief for a decision.

Transparency and Rigor

The journal ensures transparency throughout the peer review process, with no editorial interference in reviewer decisions.

III. Editor-in-Chief Decision and Revision

Initial Decision

The handling editor reviews the peer reports and decides to accept, reject, or request revisions.

Author Revisions

Authors are given an appropriate time period (based on the nature of the revision, as suggested and deemed appropriate by the handling editor) to submit revised manuscripts along with a response letter. Extensions are possible upon request.

Further Review

Revised manuscripts may be sent back for further review by the same or new reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.

Two Revision Limit

A manuscript may undergo revision up to two times. If reviewers' requests are not adequately addressed, the manuscript may be rejected.

Final Decision

If the revision time exceeds 3 months, authors are encouraged to withdraw and resubmit the manuscript as a new submission.

IV. Author Appeals

Appeal Process

Authors can appeal a rejection within 3 months by providing detailed justifications and responses to the reviewers' and Editor's concerns.

Appeal Review

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, with a recommendation to either accept, further peer review, or uphold the rejection.

Final Decision

A final rejection after appeal is conclusive and cannot be reversed.

V. Production

Manuscript Acceptance

Upon acceptance, each manuscript receives a DOI and proceeds to production.

Reference Checking

References are checked for duplication, self-citation rates, and formatting errors. Authors are contacted for corrections if necessary.

English Editing

High English language standards are required. BKRF Publications offers professional language editing services at discounted rates for authors needing assistance. Contact persons: Dr. Rocktotpal Konwarh and Dr. Anjan Barman.

Layout Editing

The manuscript is formatted according to the journal's style, ensuring visual consistency. The final version is sent to the author for review.

Proofreading

The final manuscript is thoroughly checked for errors. Authors are asked to approve the final version before online publication.

Note: Submission by Editorial Board Members and the Editor-in-Chief

a) Submissions by Editorial Board Members

JHHWB editorial board members can submit up to three papers annually (besides any editorial). These papers must be within the member's expertise and involve their direct, significant contribution to the research. The initial submission must be made by the end of the year to count towards that year's limit.

All submissions, including those from JHHWB members, are subject to the journal's editorial policies and guidelines. Rejected Direct Submissions cannot be resubmitted as member-contributed submissions.

Peer Review Process for Board Member Submissions

• Initial Screening: The Editorial Board (including the Editor-in-Chief) initially screens all submissions, including those from JHHWB members. The member submits the paper with suggested reviewers and a brief explanation for their choices. The Board evaluates the submission's suitability and the reviewers' expertise.
• Independent Peer Review: The Editorial Office sends the paper to the assigned reviewers and others selected by the Board. The member and co-authors revise the paper based on the reviews and resubmit it with a point-by-point response.
• Final Evaluation: The Board member reviews the final version, all review rounds, and the authors' responses. Only if the Board members are satisfied is the paper accepted. The handling editor's name and the reviewers' names are published with the paper.

b) Submission by the Editor-in-Chief

The JHHWB Editor-in-Chief can submit up to three papers annually (besides any editorial). When the Editor-in-Chief submits an article for publication in JHHWB, a modified peer-review process shall be implemented to ensure objectivity and maintain the highest ethical standards.

• Independent Reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief shall recuse from any involvement in the selection of peer reviewers. Reviewers will be chosen from outside the journal's editorial board and any institutions with which the Editor-in-Chief has significant professional ties.
• Blind Review: The review process will be conducted as "blind" as possible, where reviewers are not aware of the author's identity (including the Editor-in-Chief's affiliation).
• Robust Review Process: A minimum of two reviewers shall provide a thorough and critical evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief shall not have access to the reviewers' identities or their initial assessments.
• Decision-Making: The final decision on publication will ideally be made by a committee of senior editors, excluding the Editor-in-Chief.