Peer-Review Policy

The JORMA International Journal of Health and Social Sciences (JORMA IJHSS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo editorial assessment and peer review to ensure originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

JORMA IJHSS employs the following peer-review models:

1. Editorial Review

Upon submission, all manuscripts are screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editorial Board member to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Originality and scholarly contribution.
  • Adherence to submission guidelines and ethical standards.
  • Quality of writing and presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external review.

2. Single-Anonymized Peer Review

Under the single-anonymized review process:

  • Reviewers know the identity of the author(s).
  • Author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • At least one independent reviewer evaluates the manuscript and provides recommendations regarding publication, revision, or rejection.

This model promotes impartial evaluation while protecting reviewer confidentiality.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

For submissions requiring maximum impartiality, JORMA IJHSS may employ a double-anonymized review process:

  • The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.
  • Authors are required to remove identifying information from manuscripts before review.
  • Reviewers evaluate submissions solely on their scholarly merit.

This model helps minimize potential bias related to institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or reputation.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

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

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

Ethical Standards

JORMA IJHSS follows internationally recognized publication ethics standards and expects authors, reviewers, and editors to act with honesty, transparency, and professional integrity throughout the publication process. Any allegation of misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical research practices will be investigated in accordance with the journal's ethical policies.

Peer Review Timeline

JORMA IJHSS aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 1-4 weeks of submission. The overall review and publication timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the complexity of the manuscript.