Guide for Reviewers

“We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers who give their time and expertise to peer-review articles submitted to HEALTH Review journal. Peer-review process ensures that our journal maintains the highest quality standards for its published papers.”

The HEALTH Review Editorial team

The Peer-Review Process

Peer-review is an essential part of the publication process and it ensures that HEALTH Review journal maintains the highest quality standards for its published papers.

All manuscripts submitted to HEALTH Review journal are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts. All submitted papers receive a serial code number from the Editorial Secretariat, based on their date of receipt, which is electronically communicated to the author responsible for the correspondence and used for any future communication, which, in any case, takes place exclusively via e-mail: healthreview@eemyy.gr

Firstly, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal examines the submitted papers in terms of subject and the degree of compliance with the aim and scope of the journal. A technical and editorial pre-check of the manuscript is also performed. In case the subject of a paper is not consistent with the corresponding subject of the journal or in case the authors have not faithfully followed the Guide for Authors, the Εditor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject or return the paper to the corresponding author for amendments.

Papers that are in accordance with the journal guidelines are sent by the Εditor-in-Chief to independent reviewers/experts (at least two) in order to review, make amendments, and finally suggest their publication (with/or without amendments) or their rejection. If required, the opinion of a statistician is requested. The identity of the reviewers is in no case disclosed to the authors and likewise, the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers (double blind peer review process).

The reviewers’ findings are received by the Εditor-in-Chief who makes the final decision on whether or not to publish a paper and forwards its decision along with the reviewers’ comments to the authors.

The peer review process usually lasts 3-4 months. From the date of sending the results of the peer review to the authors, a period of a week is given for the re-submission of the revised paper if amendments have been requested.

Rating the Manuscript

During the manuscript evaluation, reviewers rate the following aspects:

Scope: Does the research work suit the aim and scope of the HEALTH Review journal?

Significance: Is the research question well-defined? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such? Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results?
Quality: Is the manuscript written in a well-structures and clear way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Do references support well the manuscript?
Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed? Are the ethics statements and data availability statements adequate? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Is the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)? Are there any limitations acknowledged?
Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal?
Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge?

English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

Reviewers should provide review reports in a timely manner. They should contact the Editor-in-Chief if they require an extension to the review deadline.

Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors with their comments.

If the reviewers become aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behaviour related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the Editor-in-Chief immediately.

Overall Recommendation

During the manuscript evaluation, reviewer should provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows:

Accept in Present Form: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.

Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five (5) working days for minor revisions.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. A maximum of one round of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within fifteen (15) working days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewers for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, Editor-in-Chief will recommend that authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.
Reject: The paper is rejected since it has serious flaws and makes no original contribution.

Reviewers’ recommendation is visible only to Editor-in-Chief of the journal, not to the authors. Decisions on revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified.