Peer Review Process

InHealth Theory employs a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process to ensure impartial, objective, and high-quality scientific evaluation.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Associate Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

  • Scope and relevance to the journal
  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines
  • Scientific quality and originality
  • Ethical standards
  • Plagiarism screening
  • Completeness of submission files

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.

The identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality
  • Scientific significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Statistical analysis (where applicable)
  • Quality of discussion and conclusions
  • Appropriateness of references

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information obtained during the review process is not disclosed or used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline participation whenever such conflicts could influence their judgment.

Ethical Principles

TThe peer review process adheres to the ethical guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE | Recommendations) and the recommendations of the (Budapest Open Access Initiative BOAI).

Review Timeline

  • Initial Editorial Screening: 5–7 days
  • Peer Review: 3–4 weeks
  • First Decision: Approximately 30 days
  • Average Time from Acceptance to Publication: 2–4 weeks