Peer Review Policy


The Journal of Health Advancements Research and Genomics (JHARG) is committed to ensuring the integrity, quality, and transparency of the scholarly review process. To uphold high academic and ethical standards, JHARG adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review system for all submissions.

1. Peer Review Model
JHARG follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
  • This ensures objectivity, impartiality, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
 
2. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
  • Expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
  • Proven academic and research credentials.
  • Previous peer-review experience and ethical conduct.
  • JHARG maintains a dynamic reviewer database that is regularly updated to ensure diversity, balance, and subject relevance.
3. Review Process
The peer review process at JHARG typically involves the following steps:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening : The editorial office checks the manuscript for completeness, scope relevance, formatting, and plagiarism. Manuscripts not meeting basic criteria are desk rejected.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise.
  3. Review Duration: Reviewers are given 2–3 weeks to complete the review. Extensions may be granted upon request.
  4. Evaluation Criteria:
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific soundness and methodology
  • Relevance and contribution to the field
  • Ethical standards and compliance
  • Clarity, organization, and language
4: Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject
5.Editorial Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor based on reviewers' comments and overall merit.
6.Revision and Resubmission
Authors are required to address reviewers' comments and resubmit a revised version within a stipulated timeframe. Revisions may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers.
 
7. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality and not share or use manuscript content.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Report ethical concerns, such as suspected plagiarism or data fabrication.
8. Author Responsibilities
Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original work not under review elsewhere.
  • Respond thoroughly and respectfully to reviewer comments.
  • Acknowledge all sources and funding support.
  • Cooperate during the revision process.
 
9. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed rebuttal. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, additional reviewers may be consulted.

 
10. Confidentiality
All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share or disclose any part of the content to others without permission.

 
11. Recognition of Reviewers
JHARG values the contributions of its peer reviewers and may provide:

  • Annual certificates of appreciation
  • Listing of reviewer names (with consent) on the journal website
  • Consideration for editorial board positions
 
12. Ethical Compliance
JHARG’s peer review process complies with:

  • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines
  • ICMJE and WAME recommendations for peer review and publication ethics
  • National and international scholarly publishing standards