Reviewer Guidelines

The International Journal of Health, Economics, and Social Science (IJHESS) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work. Reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding academic integrity, scientific quality, and the credibility of the journal. These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in providing fair, objective, timely, and constructive evaluations that support both authors and editors throughout the editorial process.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
• Assess originality, scientific merit, methodological quality, and contribution to knowledge.
• Provide constructive recommendations that help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Complete reviews within the agreed review period.
• Notify the editor immediately if a conflict of interest exists or if the manuscript falls outside the reviewer's expertise.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or disclose any part of the manuscript to third parties without prior permission from the Editor. Unpublished information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal research or professional advantage.

3. Evaluation Criteria

The review should consider the following aspects:

• Originality, novelty, and scientific significance.
• Relevance to the aims and scope of IJHESS.
• Clarity and accuracy of the title, abstract, and keywords.
• Quality of the literature review and research background.
• Appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology.
• Validity, reliability, and interpretation of results.
• Quality of discussion and support for conclusions.
• Use of relevant, recent, and credible references.
• Organization, academic writing quality, and language clarity.
• Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewers should provide detailed comments that clearly justify their recommendation and distinguish between comments intended for the authors and confidential comments intended for the Editor.

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should immediately inform the Editor if they identify:

• Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
• Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data.
• Major ethical concerns involving human or animal research.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Significant overlap with previously published work.

Reviews must be conducted without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, political beliefs, or personal relationships.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations if any personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationship could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—their objectivity. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed promptly to the handling editor.

7. Quality of Review Reports

Constructive review reports should:

• Be evidence-based, clear, and respectful.
• Focus on scientific quality rather than personal criticism.
• Provide practical recommendations for improvement.
• Identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Support editorial decision-making through balanced academic evaluation.