|FOCUS AND SCOPE|
|PEER REVIEW PROCESS|
Peer Review Process
Every article that goes to the editorial staff will be selected through Initial Review processes by Editorial Board. Then, the articles will be sent to the Mitra Bebestari/ peer reviewer and will go to the next selection by Double Blind Preview Process. After that, the articles will be returned to the authors to revise. These processes take a month for a maximum time. In each manuscript, Mitra Bebestari/ peer reviewer will be rated from the substantial and technical aspects. Mitra Bebestari/ peer reviewer that collaboration with Health Community Engagement (HCE) is an expert in the electronics and biomedical engineering area and issues around it. They were experienced in the prestigious journal management and publication that was spread around the nation and abroad.
All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by editorial staff. Those Manuscripts evaluated by editors to be inappropriate to journal criteria is rejected promptly without external review. Manuscripts evaluated to be of potential interest to our readership are sent to double blind reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewer's recommendation from among several possibilities: rejected, revision required, or accepted.
The editor has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. Review Process :
- The author submits the manuscript
- Editor Evaluation (some manuscripts are rejected or returned before the review process)
- Double Bind peer review process
- Editor Decision
- Confirmation to the author
Peer Review / Responsibility for the Reviewers
As an editor or a reviewer, you are requested to find out about the originality of the manuscript you are urged to review. Therefore, it is recommended that you also see the Author Guidelines and Polices page to see which points authors should take into consideration prior to submission of their papers for publication.
Although reviewed articles are treated confidentially, reviewers' judgments should be objective. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders, and reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept, only accept a paper when reasonably certain, when errors are found, promote the publication of correction or retraction, and preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Health Community Engagement (HCE) highly appreciates their kind support by agreeing to review an article for our journal. Before they consent to evaluate any paper, the reviewers are requested to consider a number of points. First, if the paper is not in your area of research interest and expertise, please inform the editor and feel free to refuse to review it. Second, if you have no free time to evaluate the paper before the deadline, kindly inform the editor. Third, in case of any conflicts of interest, the reviewer's acknowledgement can be very useful in our final decision. Therefore, if by any chance you have read the paper before or happen to know the authors, please inform the editor about this.
Kindly make sure you review the paper confidentially. Please avoid contacting the authors. In addition, should you feel the need to ask a third party for their comments, please make sure to inform the managing editor in advance.
Before they are sent to reviewers, all Health Community Engagement (HCE) papers are pre-viewed by our editor(s)-in chief. The papers are also checked for their originality using the Turnitin software. However, to our experience, there have been cases of plagiarism that the software has failed to detect. If you doubt the originality of any part(s) of the work you are reviewing, please inform the editor. In addition, if you suspect the accuracy or truth of any part(s) of the work under review, make sure to inform the editor about it.
Health Community Engagement (HCE) reviewers are requested to evaluate the articles based on a number of evaluative criteria available in the review from including the clarity, quality, thoroughness, relevance, significance, and soundness of the works. Reviewers are expected to leave comments in the manuscript itself and in the review form. These comments are very valuable for the professional development of any authors and will definitely help them improve their work.
Reviewers may also add their comments in the second section of the Review Form. Having reviewed the paper, the reviewer is requested to make any of the following decisions:
- Accept as it is
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit
This decision should be based on the merits and demerits of the work under review.
Health Community Engagement (HCE) papers are proofread before they are published, and the reviewers are by no means obliged to correct or mark language errors or typos. However, if the reviewers detect such cases, they are most welcome to highlight them.
Health Community Engagement (HCE) corresponds with its reviewers only through email; therefore, you are requested to email your report and in-text comments to the managing editor.