Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Health Nexus employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific validity of all published articles. The journal is committed to fair, unbiased, and timely evaluation of submissions.

1. Overview of the Review Model

  • Review Type: Double-blind peer review
  • Reviewers: At least two independent experts
  • Decision Authority: Editor-in-Chief or designated Academic Editor

Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to minimize bias.

2. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office and/or handling editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Basic methodological soundness
  • Compliance with submission guidelines
  • Ethical considerations (e.g., approvals, consent)
  • Language clarity and academic quality

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

3. Assignment to Handling Editor

Submissions passing initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise, who oversees the peer review process.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise
  • Publication and research track record
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

The journal ensures diversity and independence in reviewer selection where possible.

5. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific validity and methodological rigor
  • Statistical analysis and data interpretation
  • Originality and novelty
  • Interdisciplinary integration (especially TCM and Western medicine)
  • Clinical or public health relevance
  • Ethical compliance and transparency

Reviewers provide structured reports and recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

6. Review Timeline (Recommended Targets)

  • Initial editorial screening: 3–7 days
  • Peer review process: 2–4 weeks
  • First decision: within 4–6 weeks of submission

(Note: timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability.)

7. Author Revisions

Authors receiving revision decisions are expected to:

  • Submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
  • Clearly indicate changes in the revised manuscript
  • Resubmit within the specified timeframe

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

8. Final Decision

The Handling Editor, in consultation with reviewers, makes a recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated editor. Possible outcomes:

  • Acceptance
  • Minor/Major Revision
  • Rejection

9. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

All participants must adhere to ethical standards:

For Reviewers

  • Maintain strict confidentiality
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Provide objective and constructive feedback

For Editors

  • Ensure unbiased decision-making
  • Avoid conflicts of interest
  • Follow COPE guidelines in ethical issues

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share or disclose manuscript content
  • Use unpublished data for personal research

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by:

  • Submitting a detailed justification
  • Providing scientific or methodological clarification

Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board or an independent editor.

12. Post-Acceptance Process

After acceptance, manuscripts proceed to:

  • Copyediting and formatting
  • Proofreading by authors
  • Final publication online

13. Editorial Independence

The editorial decisions of Health Nexus are made independently of the publisher (Panorama Scholarly Group, PSG). The publisher does not interfere with peer review or editorial outcomes.