Peer Review Policy
By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript for Current Health Sciences Journal, reviewers agree to act in accordance with generally accepted publication ethics and best practices (including the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE). Medical University Publishing House Craiova fully adheres to these guidelines and supports reviewers, authors and editors in ensuring integrity through the publishing process.
According to these guidelines, we require all appointed peer reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of the entire peer review process, communication with the journal regarding the reviewed paper, as well as of any details of the reviewed manuscript or data related to it, during or after the peer review process.
Duties of the reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected expert who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor in order to re-assign the review to another referee.
Reviewers are requested to use the review form offered by CHSJ.
Reviewers are selected from, but not limited to, our International Scientific Board and Advisory Editorial Board. After the submission process, the corresponding author is also invited to suggest two experts in the research area of the paper, as reviewers, with full names, postal and e-mail addresses; however, the final selection of the reviewers depends entirely on the decision of the Editors. The editorial team also ensures that a reviewer cannot be an author or a person who has been acknowledged in the respective manuscript.
- The review process begins with a desk review, where the editor checks if the manuscript fits the journal's aim and scope, has obvious flaws, or meets basic formatting and quality requirements. If a paper is desk rejected, the result is communicated to the corresponding author, and the manuscript is not sent to external reviewers.
- If the manuscript passes the initial desk review, the Editor sends it out for external double-blind peer-review.
The reviewers may approve the manuscript for publication in the current form, may request additional data/experiments to be included, or may reject the manuscript; in the latter case, detailed observations will be delivered to the corresponding author. Once the peer-review report is received, the assigned editor will forward the response to the authors, who will be advised to either update their manuscript with a revised version and a cover letter explaining the modifications, or to search for a more suitable journal in their respective area of interest.
- After analyzing reviewers’ feedback, the Editor makes the final decision to accept, reject, or request revisions for a manuscript.
- In the case of a situation of “major revision” upon the second round of review, for the third evaluation, the assigned editor will assess the responses of the reviewers and the potential of the manuscript and issue a final decision; however, the editor has the liberty to asses evry paper on a case-by-case approach.
- When the two reviewers have vastly different opinions (one recommends minor revisions while the other rejects the manuscript), the Editor will ask for a third independent review in order to get a more objective assessment.
The review process leading to a first decision typically varies between 1 to 3 months.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
The integrity of the peer-review process depends on the objectivity of the reviewers, therefore during and after accepting a manuscript for peer-review, a reviewer is expected to:
• Declare any Conflicts: Reviewers must inform the editor as soon as possible and decline the review of a manuscript if they identify a potential conflict of interest.
• Report Conflict Scenarios: Conflicts may include:
o Recent or current collaborations with any of the authors.
o A close personal relationship or direct academic rivalry.
o Financial interests in the outcome of the research.
o A reasonable suspicion that the manuscript originates from a close collaborator, even under double-blind review conditions.
• Maintain Neutrality: Reviewers must maintain a neutral and objective tone throughout the evaluation. They must acknowledge and report to the editor any situation that could make them biased.
The journal treats all matters in this sphere with the utmost seriousness. To ensure the integrity of the process, if a reviewer declares a conflict of interest, the manuscript will be immediately reassigned to another evaluator.
Duties of the editors
Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Editors should recuse themselves (should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Response to ethical issues
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.
Editors' Responsibilities
Editors and editorial board members must not make editorial decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. In such situations, they will recuse themselves from the review process, and the handling of the manuscript will be transferred to another member of the editorial board.
