Review Policy

IJPHCS is peer-reviewed journal. The review criteria are:

  1. Minimum two peers of the same field.
  2. Strict double blind fold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure unbiased evaluation.
  3. IJPHCS discourage any attempt by the authors to contact the reviewer directly to influence the review process. We also strongly discourage any attempt by the reviewers to contact the authors directly.
  4. Submitted manuscript will be sent to reviewer within 3 days of submission
  5. Reviewer comments will be sent to author(s) within 2 weeks of manuscript submission.
  6. The author(s) require to submit the revised manuscript and other documentation and payment as communicated to author(s) within 7 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But at any case revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision which involves additional experiment, analysis etc.), in order to maintain IJPHCS mission of fast publication.
  7. Along with revised manuscript authors need to submit any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers in writing.
  8. The Chief Editor of the journal will have exclusive power to take final decision for acceptance or rejection during any dispute between author(s) and reviewer.

Review Process

  1. IJPHCS strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or plagiarism.
  2. Studies which are carried out to reconfirm / replicate the results of any previously published paper with new dataset, may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter.
  3. IJPHCS believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’. Manuscript that is sufficiently robust and technically sound will be accepted for publication.
  4. Technical guidelines for reviewer include:
    • Topic – suitable or not, element of confidentiality in the topic
    • Abstract – reflect the content of main manuscript
    • Scope of manuscript 
    • Material and methods – kindly comment on the suitability and technical standards of the methods. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described
    • Results & discussion – kindly comment on:
      • Are the data well controlled and robust?
      • Authors should provide relevant and current references during discussion
      • Discussion and conclusions should be based on actual facts and figures.
      • Biased claims should be pointed out.
      • Are statistical analyses must for this paper? If yes, have sufficient and appropriate statistical analyses been carried out?
    • Conclusion (Is the conclusion supported by the data, discussed inside the manuscript? Conclusions should not be biased and should be based on the data, presented inside the manuscript only. Authors should provide adequate proof for their claims without overselling them)
    • Are all the references cited relevant and adequate? Are there any other suitable current references authors need to cite?
    • Are manuscript adhered to IJPHCS format.

Authors are requested to provide 3 suitable reviewers with designations, affiliations, and email addresses. All reviewers should not be from any of the author’s own institutions and at least one referee should be from outside the country of the corresponding author. It is the editor’s discretion, to use the recommended reviewers.