JIEPH PEER REVIEW POLICY


JIEPH conducts a double blind peer review process for all manuscripts cleared for review. The editors make reasonable efforts to anonymize the identities of authors and reviewers. The JIEPH peer review process is conducted online through the JIEPH journal management system.

The peer review process and the related materials and correspondence are confidential. Reviewers should seek permission from the Managing Editor and Scientific Editor if they would like to consult other persons on matters arising from the manuscript.

Advice on issues raised by a manuscript submitted to JIEPH may be sought at the discretion of the editors.

PRE-REVIEW QUALITY CONTROL

When a manuscript is submitted to JIEPH it is assigned to an editor who checks for compliance with the instructions for authors and language correctness. The manuscript may then be assessed by the Scientific Editor or an assigned Associate Scientific Editor for scientific merit and plagiarism as well as suitability for the journal’s audience and fit for the journal’s scope. The Scientific Editor or assigned Associate Scientific Editor may then clear the manuscript for review.

REVIEWER SELECTION AND INVITATION

The Managing Editor and Scientific Editor select and invite reviewers for manuscripts cleared for review.

The Managing Editor and Scientific Editor invite at least three reviewers per manuscript cleared for review.

Additional reviewers may be invited to review specific aspects of the manuscript at the discretion of the Managing Editor and Scientific Editor.

Reviewers are given up to fourteen days to respond. A reminder is sent via email after seven days.

REVIEW REPORTS

When a reviewer accepts an invitation to review, the editors send the reviewer a copy of the manuscript and the review report form along with credentials that the reviewer can use to submit their review to the JIEPH Journal Management System.

The reviewers are allowed a stipulated period of time to conduct and submit their report and can contact the editorial office for an extension should they need it.

Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed technical review as well as one of three recommendations: Accept, Revise or Decline.

EDITORIAL DECISION

The Managing Editor and Scientific Editor read the review reports and make a decision on whether the manuscript should be accepted or declined. The Managing Editor and Scientific Editor may accept the manuscript as is for publication. The Managing Editor and Scientific Editor may send feedback from the reviewers to authors and ask for the manuscript to be revised. In the event reviewers present the editors with conflicting recommendations, the assistance of the Editor-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board may be requested at the discretion of the Managing Editor and Scientific Editor. A manuscript may be subjected to additional review at the discretion of the Managing Editor and Scientific Editor.

The decision of the Managing Editor and the Scientific Editor will be communicated to the authors using the details provided during submission.

All appeals should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.