Review Policies

JHSMS strictly follows its policy and procedure of editorial and peer review through which it is ensured that:

  • the content of the article is relevant to the aim/scope of JHSMS;
  • the article has produced an innovative and quality research;
  • the format and layout of JHSMS are followed; and
  • the style, grammar and composition of language is correct. 

The review policy of JHSMS involves editorial-review as well as peer-review. If accepted by the editorial team, the article is processed for double-blind peer-review by relevant experts of international repute. Prior to the approval for publication, an article must be accepted by at least two experts. The identity of the author(s) is kept secret from peer-reviewers and vice versa in the peer-review procedure. The peer-reviewers know the identity of the authors only after the publication of the article.

  • Articles submitted to JHSMS-IDEA are assigned to a section editor who is responsible for processing them according to the journal's policy and procedure. 
  • The section editor takes the opinion of the subject expert(s) among the editorial members for pre-peer-review revision and/or editing.
  • Based upon the editorial review, the section editor may accept the article without changes, with minor changes, with major changes, or reject it outrightly.
  • If accepted with minor/major changes, the suggestions and comments of the editorial team are shared with the corresponding author for revision/editing of the article accordingly.
  • After the revised article is submitted, the section editor forwards it for double-blind peer review to at least one local and two foreign subject experts/specialists of international repute.
  • The peer-reviewers specifically evaluate the article for the quality of the research, focusing on its relevance, originality, and innovation.
  • The author(s) must incorporate all the required changes according to the reviewers' suggestions and comments.
  • In case of difference(s), if any, the author(s) may record clarification(s)/explanation(s) for each of the observations/comments and share with the section editor.
  • The revised draft of the article may be reviewed by the section editor or peer-reviewers to validate and verify the required changes according to the suggestions and comments.
  • An expert opinion from editorial advisors may be requested to resolve the differences or conflicting reports, if any.
  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision about publishing or rejecting the revised/updated article.


[Last updated: April 6, 2024]