Review Process

Review Process

Health Nexus follows a structured and transparent review workflow to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and fairness of all published research.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

After submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Compliance with formatting and submission requirements
  • Ethical standards (e.g., approvals, disclosures)
  • Basic methodological quality

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a Handling Editor with relevant expertise, who oversees the review process and ensures appropriate evaluation.

3. Reviewer Invitation

The Handling Editor selects at least two independent reviewers based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Academic qualifications and publication record
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review model:

  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors
  • Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific rigor, originality, interdisciplinary relevance, and ethical compliance.

5. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed reports including:

  • Major and minor comments
  • Assessment of strengths and weaknesses
  • Recommendation:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor reviews all reports and makes a recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated editor.

Authors receive:

  • Decision outcome
  • Reviewer comments
  • Guidance for revision (if applicable)

7. Revision Process

For revised submissions:

  • Authors must provide a point-by-point response
  • Changes must be clearly indicated

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • Re-evaluated by original reviewers
  • Assessed by the editor directly

8. Final Decision and Acceptance

Once the manuscript meets scientific and ethical standards, it is formally accepted for publication.

9. Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to:

  • Copyediting and formatting
  • Author proofreading
  • Online publication with DOI assignment

10. Timeline (Indicative)

Review Phase Estimated Time
Initial screening 3–7 days
Peer review 2–4 weeks
First decision 4–6 weeks

* Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and revision cycles.

11. Ethical Oversight

The review process adheres to:

  • COPE ethical guidelines
  • Confidentiality and conflict-of-interest policies

Any ethical concerns raised during review will be investigated accordingly.

12. Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are made independently of:

  • Publisher influence
  • APC payments

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit and relevance.