Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy – Journal of Advanced Homoeopathic Studies (JAHS)

The Journal of Advanced Homoeopathic Studies (JAHS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous peer review process. Peer review ensures the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of the journal.

1. Review Model

  • JAHS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

    • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

    • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

  • This ensures impartiality, fairness, and objectivity in the evaluation process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

  • All submissions are first screened by the Editorial Office for:

    • Scope relevance

    • Adherence to author guidelines

    • Plagiarism check (via Similarity Check / iThenticate)

    • Ethical compliance

  • Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).

3. Assignment of Reviewers

  • Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

  • In case of conflicting reviews, a third independent reviewer or an Editorial Board member may be invited to provide an additional opinion.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following aspects:

  • Originality and contribution to homoeopathic knowledge

  • Methodological rigor and scientific validity

  • Ethical compliance in research and reporting

  • Clarity of writing, organization, and presentation

  • Relevance to clinical practice, education, or policy

5. Review Outcomes

Based on reviewers’ feedback, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept (without changes)

  • Minor Revision (author must address reviewer comments)

  • Major Revision (significant changes required; manuscript resubmitted for further review)

  • Reject (manuscript unsuitable for publication)

6. Reviewer Ethics & Responsibilities

JAHS adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript.

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Refrain from using the manuscript content for personal advantage.

  • Decline review invitations if unqualified or unavailable.

7. Author Rights

  • Authors have the right to receive constructive feedback with clear justifications for editorial decisions.

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions with a written justification to the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments.

8. Editorial Independence

  • Final decisions on acceptance or rejection rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial board consensus.

  • No manuscript will be accepted or rejected based on personal bias, institutional affiliation, religion, or nationality.

9. Transparency & Confidentiality

  • Reviewers’ identities remain anonymous under the double-blind system.

  • All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential documents.

  • Data is stored securely in the journal’s editorial management system (OJS).

10. Conflicts of Interest

  • Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest.

  • Manuscripts with potential bias will be reassigned to neutral reviewers.

11. Misconduct Handling

  • Suspected cases of plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabrication, falsification, or unethical research will be handled following COPE Flowcharts.

  • Sanctions may include rejection, retraction, reporting to institutions, or banning future submissions.

12. Alignment with Best Practices

This Peer Review Policy is consistent with:

  • COPE Code of Conduct

  • ICMJE Recommendations

  • DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice

  • Scopus / PubMed / Web of Science standards