Peer Review Process

IAHS is committed to maintaining rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer review to ensure the scientific quality and integrity of the research it publishes. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's editorial policies, scientific standards, ethical requirements, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

IAHS employs a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

The journal normally obtains at least two independent expert peer reviews for research manuscripts. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, particularly when manuscripts require specialized methodological, statistical, clinical, or interdisciplinary expertise.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The handling editor evaluates:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

• Scientific originality and potential contribution

• Overall methodological quality

• Ethical compliance

• Manuscript completeness

• Adherence to the journal's author guidelines

• Appropriate reporting guidelines where applicable

• Quality and relevance of references

• Language and readability

• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other publication misconduct

Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review if they are substantially outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific contribution, contain serious methodological or ethical concerns, do not meet the journal's basic submission requirements, or are otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within two weeks of submission.

2. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may undergo similarity screening using appropriate plagiarism-detection tools.

Similarity results are interpreted by the editorial team rather than being used as an automatic basis for rejection. The editors may investigate potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

Where concerns arise, the journal follows appropriate ethical procedures and guidance from recognized publication-ethics organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• Relevant subject-matter expertise

• Methodological expertise

• Research experience

• Publication record where appropriate

• Independence from the authors

• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest

The journal aims to maintain a geographically and institutionally diverse reviewer pool and encourages participation from qualified researchers from different countries and research communities.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission. Such suggestions are considered by the editors but are not binding, and the final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the journal.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

IAHS uses a double-blind peer-review model.

Under this system:

• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

• Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

• Reviewers must not use, share, or disclose unpublished information obtained through peer review.

• Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript without authorization from the journal.

The journal may take reasonable measures to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research fields.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript, considering, where applicable:

Scientific Contribution

• Is the research question important and clearly defined?

• Does the manuscript provide an original or meaningful contribution?

• Is the work relevant to the journal's scope?

• Does the study advance knowledge or practice in the health sciences?

Methodological Quality

• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

• Are the methods sufficiently described and reproducible?

• Are the participants, sampling procedures, interventions, exposures, and outcomes appropriately defined?

• Are statistical or analytical methods appropriate?

• Are potential sources of bias and confounding adequately addressed?

Results and Interpretation

• Are the results clearly and accurately presented?

• Are tables and figures appropriate and informative?

• Are the conclusions supported by the findings?

• Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?

• Are causal claims justified by the study design?

Ethical and Research Integrity Considerations

• Has appropriate ethical approval been obtained where required?

• Is informed consent appropriately addressed?

• Are patient privacy and confidentiality protected?

• Are potential conflicts of interest disclosed?

• Is there any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation?

Presentation and References

• Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?

• Are the abstract and keywords appropriate?

• Are relevant and up-to-date references included?

• Does the manuscript comply with applicable reporting guidelines?

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the handling editor based on the peer-review reports, the manuscript's scientific quality, and the journal's editorial policies.

6. Statistical and Methodological Review

When appropriate, manuscripts involving complex statistical analyses, prediction models, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, advanced epidemiological methods, or other specialized methodologies may undergo additional statistical or methodological review.

The journal may invite a specialist reviewer in addition to the regular subject-matter reviewers when the methodological complexity of the manuscript requires additional expertise.

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond to all reviewer and editor comments in a clear and systematic manner.

A revised manuscript should normally be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter indicating:

1. The comment raised by the reviewer or editor;

2. The author's response;

3. The specific changes made to the manuscript; and

4. The location of the changes in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. More than one round of revision may be required when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards.

8. Review Timeline

IAHS aims to provide an initial editorial decision within approximately two weeks of submission and a first peer-review decision within approximately four to six weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of reviews required.

The review period may occasionally be extended when appropriate reviewers are difficult to identify or when additional methodological or statistical assessment is required.

The journal does not compromise the quality or integrity of peer review solely to meet a predetermined publication timeline.

9. Editorial Decision

The handling editor is responsible for making the editorial decision based on:

• The scientific quality of the manuscript;

• The relevance and importance of the research;

• Reviewer recommendations;

• Ethical and research-integrity considerations;

• The manuscript's conformity with the journal's aims and scope; and

• The overall contribution to the health sciences literature.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor may accept, reject, or request revision of a manuscript regardless of an individual reviewer's recommendation when justified by the overall evidence and editorial assessment.

The journal maintains editorial independence, and editorial decisions are made on academic and ethical grounds without inappropriate influence from authors, institutions, sponsors, advertisers, or other external parties.

10. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a demonstrable problem in the review process.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address specific concerns rather than simply disagreeing with the editorial decision.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent senior editor. Where appropriate, an additional independent reviewer may be consulted.

The journal's decision following an appeal is normally final.

11. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could influence their assessment of a manuscript.

Editors should not handle manuscripts when they have a personal, professional, financial, or collaborative relationship with the authors that could compromise editorial independence.

Reviewers who have a conflict of interest are expected to decline the review invitation.

12. Confidentiality and Use of Manuscript Information

Manuscripts submitted to IAHS are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts or unpublished information with unauthorized individuals;

• Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

• Discuss manuscripts outside the authorized peer-review process; or

• Attempt to influence the authors or the editorial decision outside the established review process.

13. Special Issues and Supplementary Content

Manuscripts submitted for Special Issues, thematic collections, or supplementary publications are subject to the same standards of editorial independence, ethical oversight, and peer review as manuscripts submitted to regular issues.

Guest editors may assist with manuscript solicitation and peer review but remain subject to the journal's editorial policies. Final publication decisions remain under the authority of the journal's designated editorial leadership.

14. Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editors are responsible for maintaining the scientific and ethical standards of IAHS.

The journal is committed to fair, unbiased, and rigorous editorial decision-making and to continuous improvement of its peer-review process.

IAHS follows recognized international standards and best practices in scholarly publishing and research integrity, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable international organizations and reporting standards.