Review Process

1. Initial Submission Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
• Compliance with the author guidelines and submission requirements.
• Originality, academic quality, and clarity of presentation.
• Appropriate research design and methodological reporting.
• Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements.
• Potential plagiarism, redundant publication, or other publication-integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or demonstrate significant scholarly or ethical deficiencies may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

IJRMHS follows a double-blind peer-review model, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Manuscripts considered suitable after initial screening may be assigned to independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area and research methodology. Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, scientific validity, research design, analytical methods, interpretation of results, relevance, and contribution to existing knowledge.

To support reviewer anonymity, authors should submit a main manuscript file that does not contain their names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, or other identifying information. Author details should be provided separately in accordance with the journal's submission instructions. Authors should also review document properties and other potentially identifying information before submission.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and provide impartial, evidence-based assessments.

The editorial team considers the reviewers' reports alongside the manuscript's overall scholarly quality and compliance with journal policies. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision, but the final decision rests with the responsible editor.

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Following their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Reviewers should provide clear, constructive comments that explain their recommendations and identify any significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns.

4. Revision Stage

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editor's comments systematically.

Authors should:

• Submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline.
• Provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
• Clearly identify substantive changes made to the manuscript.
• Provide a reasoned explanation where a suggested change has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the requested changes.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period may result in closure of the submission, subject to the journal's editorial procedures.

5. Final Editorial Decision

Following the review and any required revision stages, the responsible editor makes the final decision based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, reviewer assessments, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with applicable editorial and ethical requirements.

Possible outcomes include acceptance, a further revision request, or rejection. Completion of peer review does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

6. Post-Acceptance and Publication

After acceptance, manuscripts proceed through the journal's applicable production procedures, which may include copyediting, typesetting, reference and metadata checks, and preparation of publication proofs.

Where proofs are provided, authors are expected to review them carefully and report corrections within the specified timeframe. Changes at this stage should generally be limited to correcting errors and verifying the accuracy of the final article.

Accepted articles are prepared for publication in accordance with the journal's quarterly publication schedule and applicable publishing procedures.

7. Ethical Safeguards

IJRMHS is committed to responsible editorial conduct and the protection of research integrity throughout the review process.

The journal's peer-review safeguards include:

• Confidential handling of submitted manuscripts and review reports.
• Disclosure and appropriate management of conflicts of interest.
• Assessment of potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, and research-integrity concerns.
• Appropriate consideration of ethical approval and informed consent requirements, where applicable.
• Respectful, impartial, and evidence-based reviewer feedback.
• Editorial decisions based on scholarly merit rather than authors' personal characteristics or institutional reputation.

Potential ethical concerns identified during peer review should be communicated confidentially to the editorial team for assessment in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

8. Review Timeline

The time required to review a manuscript may vary according to its subject area, methodological complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

The editorial office seeks to process submissions efficiently while allowing sufficient time for meaningful academic evaluation. Authors should refer to any review or revision deadlines communicated to them by the editorial office.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or acceptance period, and the time taken to reach a decision may vary between submissions.

9. Commitment to Quality and Fairness

IJRMHS considers peer review an essential part of responsible scholarly publishing. Through independent expert assessment, editorial oversight, and appropriate ethical safeguards, the journal aims to promote the publication of credible research that contributes to medicine, public health, and healthcare. The journal is committed to maintaining a consistent and transparent review process that supports scientific rigor, constructive academic exchange, and the integrity of the published scholarly record.