Peer Review Policies

Health Innovation Reports (HIR) follows a strict double-blind peer-review policy to ensure integrity, fairness, and transparency in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. The process guarantees anonymity for both authors and reviewers throughout the review cycle.

Double-Blind Peer Review Workflow

Stage Description
1. Submission Anonymity Authors must remove identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgments). Self-citations should be phrased in the third person if necessary.
2. Initial Editorial Check The editorial team checks for compliance with scope, formatting, ethics, and double-blind requirements.
3. Reviewer Assignment Manuscripts passing the initial check are sent to at least two independent experts in the field. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and neutrality.
4. Confidential Review Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, methodology, clarity, ethics, and contribution to the field. They submit detailed feedback and a recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject).
5. Editorial Decision The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer input and communicates it along with reviewer comments to the authors.
6. Appeals Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a written justification. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent panel.
7. Confidentiality Reviewers must not share the manuscript and must treat all materials as confidential before, during, and after the review.

Key Principles of the Peer Review Policy

Principle Details
Anonymity Reviewer and author identities remain concealed from each other to eliminate bias.
Objectivity Reviewers are selected for their subject-matter expertise and lack of conflicts of interest.
Constructiveness Reviewer feedback is expected to be professional, respectful, and focused on improving the manuscript.
Transparency Editorial decisions are based solely on merit and peer feedback.
Appeal Process Clear mechanism for authors to appeal decisions they believe were unjustified.
Confidentiality All documents and correspondence related to the peer review are treated as confidential by reviewers and editors alike.