All manuscripts submitted to  Adv. Mol. Health Sci. are evaluated through a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the highest standards of academic quality, originality, and integrity. The process is designed to uphold fairness, transparency, and objectivity at every stage of review.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Upon submission via the Open Journal System (OJS), manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for compliance with the journal’s author guidelines, alignment with the aims and scope, and adherence to ethical publishing standards. At this stage, manuscripts are also checked using plagiarism detection software. Submissions with a total similarity index exceeding 20%, or with text overlap greater than 3% from any single source, or those falling outside the journal’s scope will be desk-rejected.

 

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least three independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The review process is double-blind, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Reviewers are selected based on their scholarly expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and availability to conduct a thorough and timely assessment.

 

3. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers critically assess the manuscript’s:

• Scientific validity and methodological rigor
• Originality, novelty, and contribution to knowledge
• Clarity, coherence, and quality of presentation
• Compliance with ethical research standards (including human and animal studies)
• Relevance and impact within the field

Constructive feedback is provided to guide authors in improving the quality and clarity of their work. Reviewers do not make final decisions but provide detailed recommendations to the editorial board.

 

4. Editorial Decision

The Editorial Board makes the final decision on each manuscript based on reviewers’ recommendations. Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
• Reject

In cases where reviewer opinions differ significantly, a third reviewer may be consulted to ensure a balanced and fair evaluation.

 

5. Author Notification

Authors are informed promptly of the editorial decision and provided with reviewers’ comments. When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to all feedback and resubmit within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review as needed.

 

6. Timeline

The standard peer review process typically takes 4–8 weeks, though this may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of revisions.