Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Scientific of Environmental Health and Diseases (e-SEHAD) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of all published articles. The journal uses a Single-blind peer review system, in which reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the Editorial Team to ensure:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Compliance with formatting and ethical standards

  • Originality (checked through plagiarism screening)

  • Scientific soundness and clarity of presentation

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors for revision or rejected without external review.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

  • In some cases, a third reviewer may be invited if the first two reviews are contradictory or if additional evaluation is needed.

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and past review performance.

3. Single-Blind Review

In the double-blind process:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers

  • Reviewers  know the identity of authors

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Scientific validity and methodological rigor

  • Clarity and coherence of the manuscript

  • Ethical standards and citation accuracy

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers must provide constructive, detailed feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers reviewers’ comments and makes a final decision by:

  • Accepting the manuscript

  • Requesting revisions (minor or major)

  • Rejecting the manuscript

Authors receive the reviewers’ comments without identifying information.

6. Revision and Resubmission

  • For revisions, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a response-to-reviewers document outlining how each comment was addressed.

  • The revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or by the Editor.

  • Major revisions may undergo multiple review rounds.

7. Final Acceptance and Production

Once accepted:

  • Manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout formatting, reference checking, and proofreading.

  • Authors may be asked to review the final proof before publication.

8. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Decline review if a conflict of interest exists

  • Provide objective, respectful, and evidence-based comments

  • Complete the review within the specified timeframe

9. Peer Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks

  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks

  • Revision (by authors): varies

  • Final decision: upon completion of review and revision