NJHS Editorial Process (Review Process)

Step wise Approach

This guide provides a clear overview of the manuscript journey within the National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS) from initial submission to final publication. The NJHS peer review process follows a strict double-blind review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to maintain objectivity and fairness.

Aligned with the best practices of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), NJHS is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct, transparency, and scholarly rigor throughout the publication process.

Phase 1:
Initial Checks (Desk-Review)

The desk review serves as a critical initial screening step in the publication workflow of the National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS). This preliminary evaluation focuses on assessing whether a submitted manuscript meets the journal’s basic standards, editorial policies, and formatting requirements before proceeding to peer review.

Conducted by the editorial team typically comprising the Editor and Editorial Manager the desk review evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and its alignment with the interests of the target readership.

The manuscript is assessed for overall quality, clarity, and structural completeness, including the appropriate organization of key sections such as the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

Further, the desk review verifies adherence to NJHS formatting guidelines, including the correct use of section headings, compliance with the Vancouver referencing style, and consistency in language and presentation. Importantly, the desk review also ensures that the manuscript complies with the journal’s ethical and submission policies, serving as a foundational step in maintaining the integrity and quality of the NJHS publication process.

Ethical Compliance

As part of the desk review process at the National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS), the editorial team conducts a thorough evaluation of each manuscript’s compliance with ethical, regulatory, and formatting standards prior to initiating peer review.

Key ethical and procedural requirements assessed include:

• Verification of documented informed consent for studies involving human participants.
• Confirmation of ethical approval from recognized Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Ethics Committees. In cases of discrepancies or ethical concerns, verification may be sought directly from the issuing authority.
• Registration of clinical trials (where applicable) with valid registration numbers from approved registries.
• Clear data transparency and availability statements in accordance with best publishing practices.
• Assurance of patient privacy, confidentiality, and appropriate de-identification measures.
• Compliance with recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to study type (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, CARE for case reports).

Additionally, the editorial team ensures that all figures, tables, and supplementary materials adhere to the journal’s formatting and technical specifications.

In cases where complex ethical, procedural, or policy questions arise, the Editor-in-Chief is consulted for final guidance and decision-making.

Writing Quality and Presentation

The desk review also includes an evaluation of the manuscript’s language quality, clarity, and overall organization. The team checks for grammatical accuracy, logical flow, and coherence of the text  without assessing scientific content or research findings at this stage.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements for ethical compliance, formatting, or writing quality will be returned to authors with feedback for revision prior to further consideration.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the desk review stage proceed to plagiarism and similarity checks before being advanced to the peer review process.

Plagiarism and Similarity Check:

Prior to entering the editorial review process, all submitted manuscripts undergo a comprehensive plagiarism screening using advanced detection software (iThenticate®, Turnitin LLC).

Key aspects of the plagiarism check include:

• Manuscripts demonstrating unacceptable levels of textual similarity generally exceeding 19% for original research articles may be returned to authors for revision or may face outright rejection, depending on the extent and nature of the overlap.
• Instances of text recycling (self-plagiarism) from authors’ previous publications are carefully reviewed in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on acceptable text reuse.
• Authors are encouraged to ensure originality in their submissions and appropriately cite any reused material from their prior work.

This screening process reinforces NJHS’s commitment to research integrity, ethical publishing practices, and the highest standards of academic originality.

Statistical Review  Criteria  & its Assessment

The manuscript will be forwarded for statistical review by a designated Biostatician with relevant expertise.

As part of the manuscript evaluation process, particular attention is given to the rigor and appropriateness of statistical analysis. The following criteria guide the assessment:

• Selection of statistical methods appropriate to the research question, study design, and data characteristics.
• Accurate application, execution, and interpretation of statistical tests.
• Justification of sample size, including power calculations where applicable, to ensure adequate study validity.
• Transparent handling of missing data, outliers, and adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity issues.
• Clear reporting of measures of uncertainty, including confidence intervals, effect sizes, and p-values.
• Internal consistency between the described methods, reported results, and the conclusions drawn.

Manuscripts not meeting these standards may be returned for revision or subjected to additional expert statistical review to uphold the journal’s commitment to methodological rigor and scientific accuracy.

Biostatician may request:

• Tally sheets or data summaries.
• Original files from SPSS etc.
• Statistical analysis plans or protocols.
• Raw data or analysis code to ensure reproducibility and integrity, in line with ICMJE data-sharing recommendations.
• Findings from the statistical review will be reported to the handling Editorial Manager with specific recommendations for improvement.

If Statistical Review Is Not Required:

The process moves directly to the “Next Phase”  according to type of the article.

Phase 2:

Editorial Assessment and Review Assignment

The decision to initiate external peer review is made at the discretion of the Editor-In-Chief, following a comprehensive desk review assessment including statistical review if required . The determination is based on the following key considerations:

Criteria for Proceeding to Peer Review:

• Desk Review Assessment: Manuscripts that meet the journal’s minimum quality, ethical, and formatting standards are advanced to the double-blind peer review process.
• Scope and Novelty: Submissions that align with the journal’s thematic focus and demonstrate originality or significant contribution to the field qualify for peer review.
• Absence of Critical Flaws: Manuscripts free from fundamental methodological, ethical, or reporting deficiencies are eligible for further evaluation.
• Article Type: Certain submission categories — such as editorials, invited commentaries, or select letters — may be exempt from peer review at the Editor’s discretion

If Peer Review is Required: The manuscript will proceed to the external peer review phase (detailed in Phase 3 of the review process). The Editor will document the rationale for initiating peer review within the editorial records.

If Peer Review is Not Required: In cases where external peer review is deemed unnecessary, the editorial process moves directly to the decision stage. Possible outcomes include:

• Desk Rejection: The most common outcome — accompanied by constructive feedback to guide authors in improving their work for future submission.
• Transfer Recommendation: Authors may be advised to submit their manuscript to a more appropriate journal.
• Immediate Acceptance: Reserved for exceptional cases, such as high-impact editorials or letters meeting all publication criteria without requiring peer review.

Phase 3:

Peer Review and Revision Process

This critical phase upholds the scientific integrity and quality standards of the National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS) by implementing a structured, transparent, and rigorous peer review process. Through expert evaluation and constructive feedback, this stage ensures that all submitted manuscripts meet the journal’s scholarly, ethical, and methodological benchmarks prior to publication.

Reviewer Selection and Invitation:

The editor meticulously selects reviewers possessing relevant subject matter expertise, methodological knowledge (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), and diverse backgrounds (geography, gender, career stage). Invitations prioritize independence from authors (no collaborations within the last three years) and the declaration of any potential conflicts of interest.

A minimum of 4 to 6 potential reviewers are invited to secure at least 2 to 3 completed reviews. Additional methodological experts are invited for manuscripts employing specialized techniques.

Invitations include the manuscript abstract, a projected review timeframe (typically two to three weeks), a structured review form outlining evaluation criteria, detailed confidentiality and ethical guidelines, and clear instructions for declining if expertise is insufficient or conflicts exist.

Peer Review Process:

The National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS) upholds the highest standards of objectivity, integrity, and scholarly excellence through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review cycle to ensure impartial evaluation.

Before peer review is initiated, all manuscripts are carefully anonymized by the editorial office to eliminate any identifying information. Although authors are permitted to suggest potential reviewers, the final selection of reviewers is conducted independently by the editorial team to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the review process.

Scope of Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are provided with structured guidelines to ensure a comprehensive and standardized evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Key areas of assessment include:

• Originality and Significance; Assessment of the manuscript’s scientific merit, novelty, and contribution to advancing knowledge within the field.
• Methodological Rigor; Evaluation of the study’s design, execution, and alignment of methods with the stated research question.
• Statistical Analysis; Appraisal of the appropriateness, application, and interpretation of statistical methods.
• Interpretation of Results; Judgement on the validity of the authors’ conclusions in relation to the presented data.
• Study Limitations; Consideration of whether study limitations are appropriately acknowledged and discussed.
• Ethical Compliance; Verification of adherence to relevant ethical standards, including institutional approvals, informed consent, and compliance with publication ethics.
• Reporting Quality; Evaluation of manuscript compliance with appropriate reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR Network (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE Checklist for case reports).
• Presentation and Clarity; Review of the manuscript’s organization, language quality, clarity of tables and figures, and overall readability.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers submit confidential comments to the editor and provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to the authors. Their recommendations include:

• Categorization of revisions as Major or Minor
• Final recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject

The standard review period is 14–21 working days, ensuring a timely and efficient process.

Reviewer Development

To foster the next generation of academic reviewers, NJHS offers a reviewer mentoring program. This initiative supports early-career researchers by providing guidance and training in the principles and best practices of peer review.

Editorial Assessment of Reviews and Final Decision:

The Editor carefully synthesizes and evaluates all peer review reports, taking into consideration the consistency and validity of reviewers’ comments, potential biases, and critical technical, ethical, and statistical aspects of the manuscript. Based on this comprehensive assessment, the Editor formulates a recommendation and submits it to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision.

Editorial Decision-Making Process

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the peer reviewers’ feedback, along with the Editor’s recommendation, to make the final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept without Revisions (Acceptance): The manuscript is accepted in its current form and will proceed directly to publication.
• Accept with Minor Revisions (Acceptance with Minor Changes): The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions, such as language improvements, formatting adjustments, or clarification of specific points.
• Accept after Major Revisions (Conditional Acceptance): The manuscript will be accepted for publication provided that the authors satisfactorily address substantial revisions as recommended by the reviewers or editors.
• Revise and Resubmit (Conditional Rejection): The manuscript requires significant modifications before it can be reconsidered. Authors are invited to resubmit the revised manuscript for a new round of peer review.
• Reject (Outright Rejection): The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal, and resubmission will not be considered, even if substantial revisions are made.

The first option, acceptance without any changes, is rare. The second option, acceptance with minor revisions, is typically the best outcome authors can hope for. Once a journal issues an outright rejection, authors are generally advised not to resubmit to our Journal (National Journal of Health Sciences – NJHS), as this indicates the belief that the paper will not meet publication standards or interests, even after substantial revisions.

Decision/Acceptance Letters:

Decision letters issued by the National Journal of Health Sciences (NJHS) are designed to ensure transparency, clarity, and constructive communication with authors. Each decision letter includes the following elements:

• A clear explanation of the editorial decision and the rationale behind it.
• A concise summary of the key concerns and recommendations raised by the peer reviewers.
• Full, unedited reviewer comments are provided to authors, except in cases where inappropriate or unprofessional language is used — such content is removed or modified as necessary.

• Guidance is provided to authors on how to address conflicting or divergent reviewer recommendations.

Revision Process: Authors receiving a decision of “Major Revision” or “Minor Revision” are required to carefully address all editorial and reviewer comments in a systematic and transparent manner.

Revision Requirements

• Authors must thoroughly review all comments provided by reviewers and editors and develop a detailed revision plan.
• A Point-by-Point Response Document must be submitted, which:
  • Quotes each reviewer or editor comment verbatim.
  • Describes the specific changes made in response to the comment.
  • Provides a clear justification if a recommended change was not implemented.

Manuscript Preparation for  Revision Submission

• All revisions within the manuscript must be clearly indicated. Acceptable methods include:
  • Track changes in Microsoft Word.
  • Highlighting changes in PDF submissions.
  • Line numbering to facilitate reference to specific sections.

Required Revision Submission Materials

The revision submission package must include the following:

1. Cover / Rebuttal Letter  summarizing the revisions and addressing any critical points raised by the editorial team.
2. Point-by-Point Response Document (Rebuttal Letter)  addressing all reviewer/editor comments.
3. Revised Manuscript with clean formatting.
4. Marked-Up Manuscript showing all changes made.
5. Updated Supporting Materials (e.g., figures, tables, supplementary data).
6. Updated ICMJE Disclosure Forms, if applicable.

Review of Revised Manuscript

• Revised manuscripts are initially evaluated by the original handling editor.
• The editor may seek:
  • Additional statistical review, if warranted.
  • Re-review by the original peer reviewers.
  • Invitation of new reviewers (only in exceptional cases involving substantial manuscript restructuring or new data).

All revisions must be submitted within the timeframe specified in the decision letter. Failure to meet this deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.

The Appeals Process of the rejected manuscripts (Author’s Guidelines).

Phase 4:

Manuscript Production and Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production phase, which consists of several stages designed to ensure that the final published work meets the journal’s high standards.

1. Technical Check and File Preparation At this initial stage, the manuscript files are reviewed for technical compliance. This includes verification of figure resolution, file format, and overall quality, as well as processing supplementary materials according to the journal’s standards. The production team ensures that all technical requirements are met to facilitate a smooth transition into the next phase.
2. Copyediting Professional copyeditors then review the manuscript to correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and stylistic inconsistencies. They work to enhance clarity and readability, ensure consistency in terminology, adhere to the journal’s style guide, and verify the accuracy of references. If any ambiguous content is identified, authors may be contacted for clarification to ensure the manuscript is polished and meets the journal’s high editorial standards.
3. Typesetting and Layout Following copyediting, the manuscript is formatted using the journal’s design templates. Figures and tables are appropriately positioned, and special elements such as equations and boxes are formatted accordingly. An initial PDF proof is generated at this stage to confirm that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s design and layout standards.
4. Author Proofing The corresponding author receives PDF proofs through a secure online system, along with detailed instructions for reviewing and marking corrections. Courtesy copies are provided to all co-authors. Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of text, tables, figures, author names, affiliations, funding statements, acknowledgments, and conflict of interest disclosures. Corrections, limited to essential changes (e.g., typographical errors or factual inaccuracies), must be returned within 48 hours to prevent delays. Substantial changes require editorial approval and may postpone publication.
5. Final Quality Control Once author corrections have been implemented, the manuscript undergoes a final quality control review. Final proofs are generated and checked by the production editor for formatting consistency and by the section editor to ensure scientific content integrity. Final approval is obtained from all authors via a Final Approval Form. At this stage, a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned to the manuscript.
6. Publication Finally, the manuscript is published within a compiled issue, complete with volume and issue numbers, and is fully citable with its final DOI and accompanying metadata for indexing services. Authors receive publication notifications along with direct links to their article. Additionally, authors retain copyright under Creative Commons licensing options, including Open Access distribution under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.