Peer Review Policy

The Journal and MediHealth Academy ensure that only manuscripts that have been approved by every individual author and have not been previously published or submitted elsewhere are accepted for evaluation.

Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After the plagiarism check, eligible manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, importance of the subject matter, and alignment with the scope of the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for scientific content without regard to the ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy of the authors, ensuring a fair double-blind peer review process for the selected manuscripts.

The selected manuscripts are then sent to at least two national or international referees for evaluation. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on modifications made by the authors in accordance with the referees' comments.

Conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers are strictly prohibited, and the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the publication of manuscripts in the Journal.

Reviewers' Judgments:

Reviewers are expected to provide objective feedback on the following aspects during their evaluation:

• Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?
• Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?
• Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
• Are the methods described comprehensively?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
• Are adequate references made to other works in the field?
• Is the language acceptable?

Reviewers must ensure that all information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential. If reviewers are aware of copyright infringement or plagiarism on the author’s side, this must be reported to the editor.

If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript or knows that a prompt review will not be possible, the reviewer must notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

The editor informs reviewers that manuscripts are confidential information and that this interaction is privileged. Reviewers and the editorial board are not permitted to discuss the manuscripts with others. The anonymity of referees is paramount.

Peer Review Structure:

• Manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process.
• Each manuscript is assigned to at least two external reviewers based on their expertise.

Reviewer Ethics:

Reviewers must:

• Maintain confidentiality,
• Avoid reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest,
• Provide constructive, scholarly critiques.

Reviewer Misconduct:

Complaints regarding reviewer bias, plagiarism, or improper use of data will be thoroughly investigated. If misconduct is confirmed, the reviewer may be permanently removed from the reviewer pool.