Information for Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JIHI’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JIHI adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, JIHI needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 2 weeks. Maintaining JIHI as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope that the information provided here will help making your work easier. 

Purpose and Rewards of Reviewers

JIHI reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in helping Editor in Chief and Editorial Board in making their decisions. Peer-reviewing will help you keep up with the field and get new understandings that will improve the quality and value of your own studies.

In appreciation of your invaluable service to the JIHI, your name will be included in a list we publish on the webpage of reviewers who have reviewed for the JIHI. Also, reviewers who consistently exhibit excellent reviews and respond promptly to the editorial requests are considered for invitation to the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If JIHI’s Editor in Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

• Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
• Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
• Providing all required information within established deadlines
• Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
• Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript you are asked to review
• Reporting possible research misconducts
• Suggesting alternative reviewers in case you cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
• Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
• Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
• Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow you identify the authors
• Not identifying yourself to authors
• Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
• Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
• Informing the editor if you find the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other   publication to your knowledge
• Writing review report in English only
• Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript