Peer-Review Process
Quality of Life and Health Sciences uses a rigorous double-blind anonymous peer-review process to evaluate submitted manuscripts. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that published articles meet accepted scientific, ethical, methodological, and scholarly standards. Peer review also helps authors improve the quality, clarity, accuracy, and impact of their manuscripts.
In the double-blind review system, the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. This process is intended to reduce bias and support impartial evaluation. Authors are expected to prepare their manuscripts in a way that does not reveal their identity in the main document. Identifying information, acknowledgments, author names, affiliations, and other details that may compromise anonymity should be submitted separately when required by the journal’s submission system.
Each manuscript is reviewed by two or three reviewers. In most cases, two independent expert reviewers evaluate the manuscript. A third reviewer may be invited when the manuscript requires additional expertise, when the initial reviewer recommendations are substantially different, when methodological concerns require further assessment, or when the editor determines that an additional evaluation is necessary.
The peer-review process generally includes the following stages:
1. Submission and Initial Technical Check
After submission, the manuscript is checked by the editorial office for completeness, formatting, required documents, authorship information, ethical declarations, and compliance with the journal’s basic submission requirements. Manuscripts that are incomplete or do not meet basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial evaluation.
2. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening
Submitted manuscripts are screened using iThenticate. The editorial team reviews the similarity report to identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or inappropriate text overlap. Manuscripts with serious ethical or originality concerns may be rejected before peer review.
3. Editorial Scope and Quality Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of Quality of Life and Health Sciences. The editor may also assess the manuscript’s scientific relevance, originality, ethical compliance, methodological adequacy, and overall suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be rejected at this stage.
4. Reviewer Selection
If the manuscript passes the initial editorial screening, it is sent to two or three qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, methodological knowledge, subject expertise, publication history, and absence of known conflicts of interest.
5. Independent Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently. They may assess the originality of the study, clarity of the research problem, adequacy of the literature review, appropriateness of the methodology, validity of the analysis, accuracy of the findings, depth of discussion, ethical considerations, quality of writing, and relevance of the conclusions. Reviewers may also comment on tables, figures, references, structure, reporting standards, and practical implications.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments for the authors. Their recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission after substantial revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final decision is made by the editor.
7. Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript’s quality, the journal’s standards, and the relevance of the work before issuing a decision. Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Revise and resubmit
- Reject
The editor may also request additional review when necessary.
8. Revision by Authors
If revision is requested, authors must respond carefully to each reviewer and editorial comment. Revised manuscripts should include clear changes and, when required, a detailed response letter explaining how each comment was addressed. Authors should provide scientific justification when they disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation.
9. Re-Evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. The editor determines whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during peer review.
10. Final Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.
11. Production and Publication
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process. This may include copyediting, formatting, layout preparation, proofreading, metadata preparation, and publication on the journal website. Authors may be asked to review proofs before final publication.
The journal expects reviewers to provide fair, respectful, constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have conflicts of interest or lack sufficient expertise.
Authors are expected to participate professionally in the peer-review process. They should submit original work, provide accurate information, respond respectfully to reviewer comments, disclose conflicts of interest, and comply with ethical requirements. Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers during the review process.
Editors are responsible for maintaining fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and integrity throughout the peer-review process. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, political views, personal relationships, or financial considerations.
The peer-review process of Quality of Life and Health Sciences is designed to protect the quality of the scholarly record and support the publication of reliable, ethical, and meaningful research.
