PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Overview

Mahakarya Journal of Health Sciences (MJHS) applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and objectivity of every published article. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is evaluated solely on its scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

Step 1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). All required files and supporting documents must be completed before the manuscript enters the editorial process.

Step 2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editorial Office conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Fits the journal's focus and scope.

  • Complies with the Author Guidelines.

  • Meets formatting requirements.

  • Includes all required documents.

  • Meets basic standards of academic writing.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors before entering peer review.

Step 3. Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using similarity detection software.

The Editorial Board evaluates the similarity report to distinguish legitimate citations from potential plagiarism.

Manuscripts containing significant plagiarism or unethical publication practices may be rejected without external review.

Step 4. Editor Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor evaluates the scientific relevance and suitability of the manuscript.

If the manuscript satisfies the journal's initial standards, it proceeds to the peer review stage.

Step 5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

During the review:

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers.

  • Reviewer identities remain confidential.

  • Reviews are conducted objectively and independently.

  • Reviewers evaluate scientific quality, originality, methodology, ethical considerations, presentation, and significance of the findings.

Step 6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The reviewers also provide constructive comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Step 7. Editorial Decision

The Editor considers the reviewers' recommendations before making one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The final publication decision rests with the Editor and may not necessarily reflect unanimous reviewer recommendations.

Step 8. Author Revision

Authors receiving revision requests should revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' and editor's comments within the specified deadline.

A detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed is strongly recommended.

Step 9. Second Review (If Necessary)

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Additional rounds of revision may be requested until the manuscript satisfies the journal's publication standards.

Step 10. Final Acceptance

Once the manuscript fulfills all scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements, the Editor issues a formal acceptance decision.

The manuscript then proceeds to the production stage.

Step 11. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Copyediting

  • Language editing (if necessary)

  • Layout editing

  • Proofreading

Authors may be asked to review page proofs before publication.

Step 12. Publication

The final article is assigned publication details and published in the scheduled issue of the journal through the Online Journal System (OJS).

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

  • Originality and novelty.

  • Scientific significance.

  • Research methodology.

  • Validity of data analysis.

  • Interpretation of results.

  • Quality of discussion.

  • Appropriateness of references.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Clarity of writing and organization.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before participating in the review process.

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not be assigned to review the manuscript.

Ethical Standards

The journal adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics, including the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Any suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or ethical violations will be investigated according to the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

Review Timeline

The average review timeline is as follows:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 3–7 days
Reviewer Assignment 3–7 days
Peer Review 14–21 days
Author Revision 7–21 days
Final Editorial Decision 3–7 days

The total editorial process may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, and the number of revision rounds required.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority to accept or reject any manuscript after considering reviewer recommendations, editorial standards, publication ethics, and the overall scientific contribution of the manuscript.