Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer Review Importance

Peer review is essential for ensuring the quality, credibility, and validity of academic and scientific publications. JHHWB maintains a stringent, independent evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts before they are published.

Reviewer Criteria

JHHWB holds high standards for reviewers, expecting them to conduct timely and transparent evaluations in line with COPE guidelines. Reviewers must meet specific criteria to ensure the quality and integrity of the review process.

JHHWB emphasizes diversity among peer reviewers to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of the review process. Reviewers are selected from varied backgrounds, disciplines, and regions to strengthen the peer review system.

Peer Review Model

JHHWB uses double-blind peer review. Double-blind peer review hides author and reviewer identities, aiming for unbiased evaluation.

Reviewer Selection Process

The handling editor recommends 3–4 potential reviewers from the editorial board, reviewers' panel, or external experts. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, and two reports are typically required, with a third obtained in rare cases.

Authors can suggest reviewers during manuscript submission, but these suggestions are rigorously evaluated for objectivity and conflicts of interest. Expertise, H-index, and publication history are assessed to ensure alignment with JHHWB's scholarly standards.

Peer Review Process Overview

1. Editorial Check: Manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editorial team and/or the EiC to ensure alignment with the journal's scope and formatting guidelines.
2. Reviewer Invitation: Potential reviewers are invited to confirm availability (within a stipulated time-frame of 1 week) based on the manuscript's title and abstract.
3. Review Process: Reviewers who have agreed assess the manuscript's quality, structure, research design, and adherence to ethical guidelines, providing suggestions for improvement.

To enhance transparency and reliability in research, authors are strongly encouraged to adhere to specific reporting guidelines. During peer review, reviewers are responsible for assessing the manuscript's adherence to the declared reporting guidelines and reporting any deviations.

Assessment Checklist

When reviewing a scientific research article, a reviewer should assess the following key points:

Originality and Novelty

• Does the manuscript present new and original findings or ideas?
• Is it a significant contribution to the field or just incremental work?

Relevance to the Journal's Scope

• Does the manuscript fit within the aims and scope of the journal?

Title and Abstract

• Is the title clear, informative, and reflective of the manuscript's content?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the key points and findings?

Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly state the research question or hypothesis?
• Is the background information sufficient and relevant?
• Are the objectives of the study well defined?

Methodology

• Are the methods appropriate, well-described, and reproducible?
• Is the research design suitable for answering the research question?
• Are the sample size, data collection, and analysis methods robust and appropriate?

Results

• Are the results clearly presented and logically organized?
• Are the figures, tables, images, and schemes of high quality and appropriately labeled?
• Do the results answer the research question or support the hypotheses?

Discussion and Interpretation

• Are the results interpreted correctly and in line with the data presented?
• Are the limitations of the study discussed?
• Does the discussion compare the findings to existing literature and provide context?

Conclusion

• Is the conclusion supported by the results and discussion?
• Are the implications and potential impact of the findings clearly articulated?

References

• Are the references recent, relevant, and correctly cited?
• Are there excessive self-citations or missing important references?

Language and Clarity

• Is the manuscript written clearly and free of grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the language appropriate for the audience?

Ethical Considerations

• Does the manuscript comply with ethical standards (e.g., animal or human research)?
• Are ethical statements (e.g., informed consent, data availability) adequately provided?

Data Integrity

• Are the data sound and free of any errors or misrepresentations?
• Is the statistical analysis appropriate and properly executed?

Reporting Guidelines

• Has the author followed the relevant reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews)?
• Are these guidelines clearly mentioned and adhered to?

Overall Contribution

• Does the manuscript advance knowledge in the field?
• Is it of interest to the scientific community?

Recommendations

• Provide clear and constructive feedback for improvement.
• Recommend acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection based on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.

Manuscript Rating and Final Recommendation

Reviewers evaluate various aspects of the manuscript, including clarity, illustrations, references, and research design, providing ratings and detailed feedback. Based on their assessment, they recommend accepting, revising, or rejecting the manuscript.

Handling Ethical Concerns

Reviewers are advised to halt the review and notify the editorial office if any ethical concerns or misconduct arise.

Reviewer Benefits

JHHWB rewards reviewers with certificates, APC discounts, recognition on the website, and potential inclusion as editorial board members for outstanding contributions.

Conflict of Interest

JHHWB promotes transparency, requiring reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Any association with authors or institutes should be disclosed immediately to avoid biased evaluations.

Confidentiality Policy

Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. If they wish to involve a co-reviewer, they must first seek approval from the editorial office. Reviewers should not reveal manuscript details or author identities before or after review completion.

Timelines

Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within four weeks. If unable to meet the deadline, they must notify the editorial office to request an extension or for new reviewers to be selected.

Peer Review Misconduct

JHHWB follows COPE guidelines to prevent and address peer review manipulation. Any cases of reviewer citation manipulation, where irrelevant citations are suggested, are handled strictly to maintain the integrity of the process.

Reviewer Registration

Interested individuals can apply to become reviewers by completing a registration form, which will be evaluated by the editor to determine if their expertise aligns with the journal's needs.