Review Procedure

Editorial & Review Policy

Introduction to Peer Review

How the Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR) uses independent, double-blind peer review to support rigorous, clear, relevant, and trustworthy scholarly publication.

Double-Blind Authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities.
Independent Experts At least one and normally two qualified reviewers are invited.
Editorial Decision Reviewer recommendations inform—but do not replace—the editor's judgment.
Confidential Process Submitted manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential.
01

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is an expert evaluation of a manuscript before publication. Independent researchers with relevant subject or methodological expertise assess the work and provide constructive, evidence-based recommendations to the editorial team.

Reviewers commonly evaluate the manuscript's originality, scientific rationale, methods, ethical reporting, accuracy of analysis and interpretation, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, and potential contribution to the field. Their reports help the editor determine whether the manuscript should be revised, accepted, or rejected.

02

How Does It Work at JHNR?

Authors submit one complete manuscript containing all required author and institutional information. The submission first undergoes editorial screening, during which the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor assesses its scope, article type, template compliance, originality, scientific basis, ethical requirements, completeness, and presentation quality. For a manuscript that is suitable for external review, the editorial office prepares an anonymized review copy before a handling editor invites independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

JHNR review standard: At least one and normally two reviewers are invited. Review reports are normally requested within 30 days. These are target timeframes and may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions, or research-integrity checks.
03

Double-Blind Peer Review

JHNR uses a double-blind review model. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during or after the review process, unless disclosure is required by law or an applicable publication-ethics process.

Single-file submission: Authors are not required to prepare a separate Title Page and anonymized Main Manuscript. The complete manuscript is retained as a confidential editorial record, while reviewers receive only the blinded copy prepared by the editorial office.
What Authors Must Do
  • Upload one complete manuscript file using the current JHNR template.
  • Include the full names, affiliations, email addresses, ORCID iDs, and corresponding-author details required by the journal.
  • Include complete funding, conflict-of-interest, acknowledgment, ethics, and other required declarations.
  • Ensure that the author names, order, affiliations, and contact information in OJS match the manuscript.
  • Remove comments, tracked changes, hidden notes, and unused template instructions, but do not anonymize the manuscript unless requested by the editorial office.
What the Journal Does
  • Retains the complete submitted manuscript as a confidential editorial record.
  • Creates a separate blinded review copy by removing or masking author names, affiliations, emails, ORCID iDs, contact details, acknowledgments, identifying declarations, and file metadata where necessary.
  • Checks the blinded copy before allowing reviewers to access it.
  • Selects reviewers for relevant expertise, independence, and absence of disqualifying conflicts.
  • Keeps reviewer identities and reports confidential and manages all communications through the editorial system.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to protect anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when a study setting, methods, public protocol, dataset, preprint, or citation pattern makes an author's identity recognizable.

04

Why Peer Review Matters

Peer review supports scientific quality control by bringing an independent expert perspective to the manuscript. Constructive review can make a paper:

✓
More Rigorous

Reviewers may identify unsupported claims, methodological weaknesses, missing information, or analyses requiring clarification.

✓
Clearer

Reviewers can identify sections that are difficult to follow and suggest improvements to organization, explanation, tables, and figures.

✓
More Relevant

Reviewers assess whether the research question, findings, and implications provide a meaningful contribution to the field.

Important: Peer review improves scrutiny but does not certify that a manuscript is error-free or that its conclusions are unquestionably correct. Authors remain responsible for the integrity, accuracy, originality, and ethical compliance of their work.

JHNR Peer-Review Workflow

The exact path may vary when technical corrections, additional reviews, ethics inquiries, or multiple revision rounds are required.

1
Submission Received One complete manuscript, required declarations, and OJS metadata are checked for completeness and consistency.
↓
2
Initial Editorial Screening Scope, template, originality, ethics, scientific basis, completeness, and language are normally assessed within 2–3 working days.
↓
3
Anonymization and Reviewer Selection The editorial office prepares and checks a blinded review copy. A subject editor then invites independent reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflict of interest.
↓
4
Double-Blind Peer Review At least one and normally two reviewers assess the manuscript; reports are normally requested within 30 days.
↓
5
Editorial Assessment The editor evaluates the reports, resolves conflicting advice when necessary, and may seek an additional review or clarification.
↓
6
Revision, When Requested Authors revise the manuscript and submit a complete point-by-point response. A revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers.
↓
7
Editorial Decision The Editor-in-Chief issues the decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, resubmit for review, or reject.

Responsibilities in Peer Review

Reviewers

Provide objective, constructive, timely, and confidential reports; disclose conflicts of interest; support comments with clear scientific reasoning; and never use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Editors

Select appropriate reviewers, protect confidentiality, evaluate reports fairly, manage competing recommendations, and make decisions based on scientific merit, journal scope, ethics, and policy.

Authors

Respond respectfully and completely, revise transparently, identify every change, explain any recommendation not followed, maintain accurate records, and preserve the integrity of the submitted work.

Confidentiality and Generative AI

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, author information, reviewer identities, and review reports are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not upload these materials to public or unauthorized third-party generative AI tools. Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's scientific evaluation or the editor's decision-making. The responsible human reviewer or editor remains accountable for all assessments and decisions.

Peer-Review Work Scheme

Illustrative overview of the peer-review process. The written policy on this page takes precedence if any detail differs.

Illustrative JHNR peer-review work scheme

Before Submitting

Peer review begins only after a manuscript passes initial editorial screening. Authors should ensure that the topic fits the journal's scope, the current template is used, and the single complete manuscript contains accurate author information and all required declarations. Authors do not need to prepare a separate Title Page or anonymized Main Manuscript; the editorial office prepares the blinded review copy.

Peer review and stated timeframes support editorial quality but do not guarantee acceptance or publication.