Peer Review Process

1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation

Every submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial office to ensure compliance with the guidelines of the Journal of Health Sciences. In case of deviations, authors are requested to make appropriate corrections. The Editor-in-Chief then evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with the editorial policy and whether it might be of interest to the journal's readers. If the manuscript fails to meet the minimum standards of scientific and linguistic adequacy, the Editor-in-Chief may reject it before the peer-review process begins, informing the authors accordingly.

2. Peer-Review Process

Following a successful initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief initiates the peer-review process. Based on the content of the manuscript, reviewers are requested to assess the article. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in evaluating the content and scientific merit of the manuscript. Articles undergo double-blind review, meaning the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.

3. Reviewer's Report

The work of a reviewer is responsible and demanding. Through their suggestions and evaluations, reviewers contribute to the higher quality of articles published in the Journal of Health Sciences.

Reviewers must consider the following criteria in evaluating the manuscript:

• Clarity of the contribution
• Linguistic adequacy
• Structure of the manuscript
• Appropriateness of the title with regard to the purpose and content
• Clarity of the problem presentation and research objectives
• Research methodology
• Validity of the research results concerning the methodology used
• Connection of the research findings with other research evidence in the discussion
• Appropriateness and currency of literature and sources, along with their citation and referencing.

Reviewers also state whether:

• the article is acceptable in its submitted form,
• the article needs to be revised according to the stated comments,
• the article should be rejected.

Reviewers must clearly specify suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript and commit not to reproduce or use the contents of the article. They also propose the article's typology for its management in the COBISS system and return the assessment of the manuscript with suggestions and comments to the journal's address.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the assessment and sends it to the authors. Authors return the revised manuscript in two versions: clean copy and a version with visible changes (Track changes).

The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief.