Guidelines for Reviewers
JoCIH adopts the double-blind peer review system but maintaining that this is a community-based process. Authors should have the opportunity to improve their papers and receiving valuable inputs. Members of the Editorial Boards will not be considered as gatekeepers. On the contrary, it is expected that they foster creativity and incentivize authors to keep improving and sharing their original work with others, in the spirit of Open Access scientific literature.
The double-blind peer review process requires that the reviewer and author’s names and information are withheld from each other. The journal’s policy is to have manuscripts reviewed by two expert reviewers within four weeks of receipt. Reviewers make comments to the author and recommendations to the Editors, who make the final decision, following the process described in the Peer Review Section.
Members of the General and Deputy/Managing Editors Boards are responsible for the quality of the journal: they will take the necessary steps to ensure a high standard. The editors will make their decisions on submissions based only on scientific rigor, regardless of any other possible ground.
Reviewing a manuscript involves:
- Knowledge and academic experience. Accepting an invitation to review a manuscript necessarily means that the reviewer is able to evaluate the subject of the article.
- Availability. Reviewing an article requires dedicating time and displaying an unbiased balance on the pros and cons of the manuscript.
- Conflict of interest. Referees must declare any conflict of interest they might have because they have identified the author(s) of the manuscript and are too close to them.
- The reviewer must maintain strict confidentiality when assessing a manuscript and must not divulge its content to third parties.
- Constructive analysis. The task of the review is to provide a constructive, critical analysis of the manuscript content, to collaborate with the general editors and the subject editors in checking / ratifying whether the work is of high scientific value and complies with this journal’s standards of excellence in order to be accepted and edited.
- Timeliness. Reviewers warrant on accepting an article for review that they will review the article within four weeks.
In addition to that, JoCIH has in place a policy to detect fraud and plagiarism. Manuscripts will be rejected in this case.
Criteria for review of an article include: (i) the title, abstract and keywords, (ii) relevance, (iii) originality, (iv) state of the art (literature review), (v) formal organization, (vi) scientific writing, (vii) methodology, (viii) data interpretation and analysis.
The aspects of the manuscript that will be under review are: (i) the title, abstract and keywords, (ii) relevance, (iii) originality, (iv) state of the art (literature review), (v) formal organization, (vi) scientific writing, (vii) methodology, (viii) data interpretation and analysis. They will score these aspects from 1 to 5, and they will have the opportunity to briefly justify their decision and make comments to the Editors.
In the end, reviewers will reach a decision: (i) acceptance; (ii) acceptance with minor revisions, (iii) acceptance with major revisions, (iv) resubmission, (v) rejection.