Double-anonymized Review

The International Community Health Journal (ICHJ) utilizes a stringent double-anonymized review process, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another. Manuscripts that align with the journal's criteria will be forwarded to at least two independent expert reviewers for an assessment of their scientific merit. The ultimate determination of whether an article is accepted or rejected is made by the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

Should there be any unforeseen delays, the Managing Editor has the authority to request that editorial board members assess the articles. Alternatively, authors may be invited to recommend reviewers or to withdraw their manuscripts from the submission process.

It is essential to note that letters to the editor and editorials are exempt from peer review, as specified in the Editorial Process. To support the double-anonymized review process, authors are required to submit the following documents separately:

• Title Page (with author details). The document should contain the title of the article, the authors' names and their affiliations (with email addresses), acknowledgments, information on funding sources, a declaration of conflicting interests, and a comprehensive address for the corresponding author.
• Anonymized manuscript (no author details). The document includes references, figures, and tables. It should be devoid of any information that might disclose the authors' identities or their affiliations.
• Supplementary materials are also required to be peer-reviewed.

Peer Review Process

Upon receiving an invitation to evaluate a journal article, each reviewer will be sent an email that includes hyperlinks to their response. By selecting the relevant hyperlink, the reviewer will communicate their availability to the journal's editorial office regarding the article’s review. Should the reviewer agree to undertake the review, they will have the option to download the manuscript and fill out a Manuscript Review Form, which generally permits a free-form response.

Reviewers are expected to conduct an objective and critical review of the manuscript, assessing factors including the study's concept, its relevance to current scientific discourse, the integrity of the scientific content, and the quality of language and grammar used. The inclusion of offensive language in comments is unacceptable.

While it is expected that each reviewer will present an initial judgment or recommendation on whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected, the final determination is made by the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The decision may fall into one of the following categories:

• Accept Submission. The manuscript has been evaluated and is considered appropriate for publication without the need for additional revisions, allowing it to advance to the copyediting phase.
• Revisions Required. Some minor adjustments are required, which the editor can review and approve.
• Resubmit for Review. Substantial changes are required, which will entail another cycle of peer review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere. The manuscript is not compatible with the journal's focus and scope, indicating that it might be more appropriate for submission to a different publication.
• Decline or Reject Submission. The manuscript exhibits considerable weaknesses, rendering it unsuitable for publication in this journal.

Ethical Guideline for Peer Reviewers

COPE has instituted Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which delineate the core principles and standards that all peer reviewers must follow during the peer-review process. Peer reviewers are also expected to:

• Accept only those manuscripts for review for which they possess the necessary subject expertise to conduct a comprehensive and prompt evaluation.
• Uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process, ensuring that no manuscript details or reviews are disclosed beyond what the journal has authorized.
• Refrain from using information obtained during the peer-review process for personal advantage or to harm or discredit others.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest and seek guidance from the journal if there is uncertainty regarding the relevance of an interest.
• Maintain impartiality and constructiveness in their reviews, avoiding hostility or inflammatory language, as well as defamatory or insulting comments.
• Understand that peer review is essentially a collaborative endeavour and pledge to fulfil one's fair portion of reviews in a timely manner.
• Provide ICHJ with accurate personal and professional information that reflects their expertise.
• Understand that impersonating another individual during the review process constitutes a serious offense.

Cases of Suspected Misconduct

Investigations into allegations of misconduct or suspected misconduct are conducted in alignment with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines to the extent that it is feasible.