Peer Review Process

Ensuring Quality, Fairness, and Transparency in Publication
The Journal of Advanced Pediatrics and Child Health (JAPCH) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process that guarantees objectivity, academic integrity, and constructive scientific dialogue between authors and reviewers.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process is central to maintaining the journal’s quality and credibility. All submitted manuscripts undergo editorial screening followed by an independent double-blind review by qualified experts in the relevant field.

2. Step-by-Step Review Workflow

Stage Description
Initial Screening The Editorial Office checks submissions for scope, format, plagiarism (via iThenticate), and compliance with author guidelines.
Editorial Assessment The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript for novelty, significance, and ethical compliance.
Reviewer Assignment At least two independent reviewers are invited based on subject expertise and absence of conflict of interest.
Double-Blind Review Both author and reviewer identities are concealed to ensure unbiased evaluation.
Reviewer Feedback Reviewers provide detailed reports highlighting strengths, limitations, and suggested revisions.
Editorial Decision The handling editor considers reviewer recommendations and decides: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Revision and Resubmission Authors submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments point-by-point.
Final Decision The editor verifies revisions and issues the final acceptance or rejection notice.
Production and Publication Accepted papers proceed to copyediting, DOI assignment, typesetting, and online publication.

3. Types of Peer Review

  • Double-Blind Review: Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.
  • Single-Blind Review: In exceptional cases, reviewer identity is hidden while authors’ names are known.
  • Open Review (Optional): JAPCH may allow mutual disclosure for collaborative transparency when agreed upon by both parties.

4. Reviewer Criteria

  • Subject expertise and publication record in the relevant field.
  • Absence of conflict of interest with the manuscript or authors.
  • Commitment to confidentiality and ethical conduct in review.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must provide constructive feedback within the deadline, evaluate originality and methodology, and identify any ethical or technical flaws.

6. Author Responsibilities During Review

  • Submit complete and accurate information at the time of submission.
  • Address all reviewer comments clearly in the revised manuscript.
  • Maintain respectful communication with the editorial team.

7. Editorial Oversight

Editors oversee the entire process to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to journal standards. All editorial decisions are independent of commercial or political influence.

8. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The journal adheres to COPE and WAME guidelines to prevent plagiarism, data falsification, or unethical reviewer conduct. Any breach leads to immediate corrective action or reviewer removal.

9. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Both reviewers and editors must disclose any personal, professional, or financial conflicts before handling or reviewing a manuscript.

10. Decision Categories

  • Accept: The manuscript meets publication standards with minimal revision.
  • Minor Revision: Small clarifications or formatting adjustments required.
  • Major Revision: Substantial methodological or conceptual changes needed.
  • Reject: Manuscript does not meet the scientific or ethical criteria for publication.

11. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification within 14 days. The appeal is reviewed by an independent editorial panel whose decision is final.

12. Timeframe

The standard peer review cycle lasts 3–6 weeks. Authors are notified of any expected delays or extended reviews for complex studies.

13. Post-Acceptance Peer Review

After acceptance, manuscripts may undergo additional technical review to verify data presentation, ethics compliance, and citation accuracy before publication.

14. Transparency and Accountability

All decisions, reviews, and communications are securely stored within JAPCH’s editorial management system for accountability and audit purposes.

15. Contact Information

For peer review-related inquiries:
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.pediatricshealthjournal.com