For Reviewer
Our publication process is dependent on the expertise of peer reviewers whose assessments are critical in ascertaining the quality of submissions and ensuring that only those meeting our standards are published. We are profoundly grateful for their dedication and the considerable time and effort they invest. It is imperative that they adhere to the ensuring guidelines.
SCOPE of the JOURNAL
This journal encompasses a broad range of subjects pertaining to health issues and healthcare studies. Additionally, fundamental medical research that has evident clinical applications is eligible for consideration.
DOUBLE-BLIND
The journal adheres to a double-blind peer review protocol wherein the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another. Reviewers chosen for this process are ensured not to have any affiliation with the same institution or country as that of the contributing authors to maintain impartiality.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A conflict of interest arises within the manuscript review and publication framework when a participant has affiliations that could unduly affect their evaluation, irrespective of the actual impact on their decision-making process.
Reviewers are obligated to disclose any conflicts that might prejudice their assessment of a manuscript and should exclude themselves from evaluating specific manuscripts if deemed necessary.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Reviewers hold a responsibility to regard the manuscripts they evaluate as confidential documents. They must avoid exploiting unpublished information from these manuscripts for personal gain.
Furthermore, it is deemed unethical and a violation of the journal’s policies to share, discuss with colleagues or distribute the content being reviewed. Reviewers are advised to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers for comprehensive standards, accessible at: (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
TIMELINESS
Typically, we request that reviewers submit their assessments within a two-week timeframe, though extensions are available if necessary. Should you be unable to meet the specified deadline when invited to review, please notify the editorial office. Additionally, if you find yourself unable to conduct the review, we greatly appreciate recommendations for an alternative reviewer with the requisite qualifications.
MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION
The critical evaluation of the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts by reviewers is essential, as it guides the editor's decision on whether to publish. Reviewers are expected to assess if a manuscript is fit for publication, lacks the necessary merit, or requires modifications and further review before it can be published. Authors benefit significantly from the constructive critiques provided by reviewers, and it is imperative that reviewers express their feedback in a respectful and considerate manner, enabling the transmission of these valuable comments to the authors. Feedback should be clear, rational, and supportive, aimed at facilitating improvements to the manuscript. Reviewers can access the manuscript evaluation form here. Once completed, the form should be uploaded to our website as per the provided instructions.
A checklist should be given to the reviewers and ask to consider the following items:
ORIGINALITY - Assess whether the manuscript presents new information or merely reiterates findings that have already been published.
IMPORTANCE - Determine the manuscript's relevance to the journal's broad readership, its alignment with the journal's focus, and its contribution to augmenting current knowledge.
SCIENTIFIC AND CLINICAL INTEREST - Evaluate if the manuscript employs suitable methods, design, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and includes current references.
LANGUAGE AND LENGTH - Review the manuscript for clarity, coherence, and the use of appropriate terminology.
FIGURES AND TABLES - Consider the necessity and utility of the included figures and tables, as well as their presentation and quality.
ETHICAL CONCERNS - Identify any ethical issues related to the research presented in the manuscript.
The journal does not offer monetary compensation to reviewers. Both the authors and the journal are deeply thankful for the reviewers' voluntary contributions and the time dedicated to assessing manuscripts. Reviewing is deemed a fundamental component of the academic and research process, and we strive to recognize the efforts of our reviewers whenever possible.
Reviewers in Saudi Arabia:
The SJHRP will provide a certificate confirming his involvement in the article review process. Depending on the guidelines of their academic or professional institutions, reviewers may be eligible to claim CME hours from accrediting bodies.
