header

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Innovative Horizons in Care and Community Journal (IHCCJ) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, objectivity, fairness, and integrity of all published articles. Throughout the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief.

During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

  • Compliance with the journal's Aims and Scope.
  • Adherence to the Author Guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.
  • Originality through plagiarism screening using similarity detection software.
  • Overall scientific quality and relevance.
  • Ethical compliance, including research ethics approval where applicable.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's minimum editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant subject area.

IHCCJ applies a double-blind peer review system in which:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive feedback based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Significance and relevance of the research
  • Methodological rigor and research design
  • Validity of data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity, organization, and quality of writing
  • Appropriateness and completeness of references
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication without revision.
  • Minor Revision – Publication is recommended after minor revisions.
  • Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required before further consideration.
  • Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations serve as advisory opinions. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to:

  • Revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' and editors' comments.
  • Submit a detailed Response to Reviewers document explaining how each comment has been addressed.
  • Upload the revised manuscript within the specified revision period.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline, without prior communication with the Editorial Office, may result in withdrawal of the submission.

5. Final Editorial Decision

After completion of the peer review and revision process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on:

  • The reviewers' recommendations.
  • The scientific quality of the revised manuscript.
  • Compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

The final decision may be:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Editorial Revisions
  • Reject

Authors will be notified of the editorial decision through the Online Journal System (OJS).

6. Copyediting, Production, and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed through the production process, which includes:

  • Professional copyediting for language, grammar, and style.
  • Technical editing to ensure consistency with the journal's formatting requirements.
  • Layout and typesetting.
  • Author proofreading of the final galley proofs prior to publication.

Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the proofs and returning any corrections within the specified timeframe. Only minor typographical or formatting corrections are permitted at this stage.

7. Publication

Following final approval, articles are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), published in the scheduled issue of the journal, and made immediately available through the journal website as Open Access content.

Published articles are freely accessible without subscription or registration barriers and are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

8. Peer Review Principles

IHCCJ is committed to ensuring that the peer review process is conducted according to the principles of:

  • Fairness and impartiality
  • Confidentiality
  • Transparency
  • Academic integrity
  • Ethical responsibility
  • Timeliness
  • Constructive scholarly evaluation

The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, ensuring that every submission receives an objective, rigorous, and ethical evaluation.