Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IJSH’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. IJSH adheres to a double anonymized peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In doing so, IJSH needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 2 weeks. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise within the topic area of the submission, and their purpose is to assist the authors and the journal by providing a critical review of the manuscript. To apply as a reviewer in our journal, please send your request with your resume to schoolhealth.j@gmail.com. The editorial board of the journal will review your resume and will be in contact with you.

Maintaining IJSH as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope that the information provided here will help making your work easier.

Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:

•  The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
•  They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Purpose and Rewards of Reviewers

IJSH reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in helping Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in making their decisions. Peer-reviewing will help you keep up with the field and get new understandings that will improve the quality and value of your own studies.

In appreciation of your invaluable service to the IJSH, reviewers who consistently exhibit excellent reviews and respond promptly to the editorial requests are considered for invitation to the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If you are invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

• Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
• Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
• Providing all required information within established deadlines
• Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
• Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript you are asked to review
•  Reporting possible research misconducts
•  Suggesting alternative reviewers in case you cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
• Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
• Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
• Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow you identify the authors
• Not identifying yourself to authors
• Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
• Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
• Informing the editor if you find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other   publication to your knowledge
•  Writing review report in English only
•  Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. WAME

“Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE

Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.

Reviewers who seek assistance from a colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals' contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. These reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript as outlined, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review. Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

“Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”. COPE

Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by:

•  The origin of the manuscript
•  Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
•  Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

Peer-Review Process 

As part of the peer-review process, IJSH and all its reviewers abide to the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to journal. In this regard, we do not share information about manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Any requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings are refused. 

Also, reviewers are advised not to keep the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy paper copies of manuscripts and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews. It should also be noted that, rejected manuscripts are kept in the editorial system as an archive. But, published manuscripts and all their contents regarding copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondences are kept in perpetuity for further questions about the work should be raised.

Each manuscript is sent to two or more reviewers in the process of double anonymized peer-review peer review. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected (for further information please visit ICMJE). 

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

• Accept
• Requires minor revision
• Requires major revision
• Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

How to Review a Manuscript via the IJSH Portal?

As the first step in the review process, we send an invitation email to the reviewers and provide them with the abstract of manuscript. We will then register them via the IJSH portal and a Username and Password will be sent to them automatically.

To complete the review process and to get access to the full text of manuscript, reviewers should login via the IJSH portal then follow the instructions provided in below:

Please go to your profile--Reviewer Section--Pending Assignments--Click on the manuscript ID--Click on Manuscript Evaluation Form-- Make the decision (Reviewer Recommendation) as to Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject--Push "Send to Editor" button.

You can also find basic training for reviewer tasks and step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript in the journal’s website through this link.

Ethical Issues

Since IJSH follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines in all aspects of publication ethics, please consider the following instructions during the reviewing process. 

What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication?

• Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript (Link)
• Suspected redundant publication in a published article (Link)

What to do if you suspect plagiarism?

• Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript (Link)
• Suspected plagiarism in a published article (Link)

What to do if you suspect fabricated data?

• Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript (Link)
• Suspected fabricated data in a published article (Link)

What to do if you suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript? (Link)  

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

• ICMJE - Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process

• WAME - Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals