Pre-Review Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Health Concord (IHC) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure scientific validity, originality, and relevance. All article types submitted to the journal are subject to peer review, and submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication. Upon submission through the IHC online system, manuscripts first undergo a pre-review screening by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), typically lasting one week.

During this stage, the manuscript is assessed for alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and adherence to formatting and writing guidelines. A plagiarism check is conducted using Turnitin or equivalent tools. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% are either returned for revision or rejected, with allowances for methodology descriptions, direct quotations, or preprints/dissertations.

Authors retain the right to withdraw their manuscript at any stage prior to the commencement of the peer-review process. Manuscripts that pass this stage are forwarded to the Section Editor for further processing.

Assignment of Reviewers

Within 1–3 days of passing pre-review, the Section Editor appoints at least 2 (two) independent external expert reviewers with relevant expertise, none of whom are members of the journal’s editorial team. Reviewers are selected from institutions different from the authors’ to avoid conflicts of interest.

The journal uses a pre-established reviewer database maintained by the editorial office. Author-recommended reviewers are not used in the peer-review process. Authors must remove all identifying information from the manuscript to maintain the integrity of the double-blind review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Peer-Review Process

Reviewers are given 6–8 weeks to conduct a thorough evaluation. All components of the submission, including supplementary materials, tables, figures, and appendices, are subject to peer review. Each reviewer assesses:

• Originality and novelty of the research
• Methodological validity and rigor
• Logical flow, clarity, and structure of arguments
• Relevance and applicability to health research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
• Ethical considerations, including informed consent, conflict of interest disclosure, and data availability

Based on this evaluation, reviewers provide constructive feedback and a recommendation: accept without revisions, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewer reports are anonymous and are not published alongside the articles. Manuscripts may undergo up to 2–3 rounds of revision, depending on the extent of required changes.

Editorial Decision

After receiving all reviewer reports, the EIC makes the final editorial decision, usually within one week. In cases of conflicting recommendations, additional reviewers may be consulted to ensure objective evaluation. Anonymous reviewer comments and editorial decisions are communicated to authors to guide revisions and improvements.

If delays occur at any stage of the review or editorial process, authors will be informed promptly of the reason for the delay.

Revision Process

Authors are given a specific timeframe to revise their manuscripts: two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions, with flexibility if needed for substantial revisions. Authors must submit a revised manuscript with tracked changes and a detailed response letter addressing all reviewer comments.

Revised manuscripts for major revisions are re-evaluated by the original reviewers, while minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor.

Post-Acceptance and Publication

Once accepted, manuscripts undergo copyediting (approximately one week), followed by final proofreading by authors and signing of the copyright agreement (1–2 weeks). The final step is official publication on the journal website (about one week).

All published articles include the dates of submission and acceptance, ensuring transparency in the editorial and peer-review timeline.

Summary

The IHC peer-review process is systematic, transparent, and rigorous, emphasizing originality, interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical standards, and relevance to LMICs. This process ensures that every publication contributes meaningfully to the advancement of health research and aligns with international standards for high-impact journals.