Peer Review Policies
The Journal of Research in Health and Medical Sciences is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in scientific publishing. The journal employs a double-blind peer-review system, which ensures that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. In this regard, it applies the guidelines and recommendations developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publishing of scientific researches.

Peer Review Process
An article to be published in the "Journal of Research in Health and Medical Sciences" should be evaluated by the editorial team (editor-in-chief and specialized editors) and a rigorous peer review process.

1. The evaluation by the editorial team
All articles undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their compliance with the journal's scope and quality standards. Articles may be rejected at this stage if they fail to meet the criteria for novelty, relevance, and quality. The majority of articles are forwarded to the subsequent stage of review. If further revisions are required prior to peer review, authors will be invited to implement the necessary modifications. Authors will typically be notified of the initial rejection or revision decision within 1-2 week of submission.

2. Peer Review
After the initial evaluation by the editorial team, articles are sent for double-blind peer review. Editors typically select two reviewers, experts in the topic. Often, we include one expert for statistics technique. At this stage, the author and the reviewer remain anonymous. The peer review process is managed by the journal's specialist editors, under the supervision of the editor-in-chief, until the final decision on acceptance or rejection of the article is made. The typical duration of the peer review process is a couple of weeks.

Role of Reviewers
In the double-blind review process, reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and should not reveal their identity at any stage. Reviewers should only accept articles in their area of ​​expertise and ensure that they can devote sufficient time to complete the review. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should immediately withdraw from the review process. If a reviewer determines that they cannot review the article within the required time frame, they should decline the invitation to review. Reviewers are responsible for assessing the originality, quality, and credibility of the articles and ensuring the following:

• Compliance with the journal's structure and formatting guidelines
• Clear statement of the article's objectives
• Appropriateness of the method
• Accuracy and precision of the results
• Appropriateness of discussion and conclusion
• Relevance and accuracy of references
• Grammar, punctuation, and typos
• Identification of any plagiarism

Reviewers should provide constructive and unbiased feedback and offer suggestions for rejection, acceptance, or revision of the article. Reviewers should not share articles with others or copy them for personal use.

Review Guidelines
As a reviewer, your role is essential in maintaining the quality and scientific integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide clear and constructive feedback that helps improve articles while respecting the author's work. The reviewer's comments guide the editorial team in deciding whether to publish the article. The reviewer guidelines include the following:

• Confidentiality: Articles are confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed outside of the review process.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be impartial, evidence-based, and according to the scientific content of the article. If an article is outside your area of ​​expertise, you should decline the invitation to review.
• Constructive Feedback: The reviewer is expected to provide constructive scientific feedback focused on improving the quality of the article, while respectfully acknowledging the author's contributions.
• Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the specified time frame (usually 4 weeks) to avoid unnecessary delays for authors.

Privacy and Confidentiality
According to ICMJE recommendations, confidentiality is of utmost importance throughout the peer review process, and reviewers and editors are equally bound by confidentiality obligations. Confidentiality obligations include:

• Reviewers should not share or discuss articles with anyone outside of the review process unless expressly authorized by the editor.
• Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted articles, including information about receipt, status, and peer review comments.
• Reviewers must return or remove articles after review is complete.
• If misconduct, fraud, or any other ethical violation is suspected during the review process, the editor-in-chief may infract confidentiality to investigate the issue.

Conflict of Interest in the Review Process
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could influence the review. If a reviewer's personal or professional relationship with an author causes bias in their evaluation, they must recuse themselves from the review process. Reviewers must immediately report the editorial team if they suspect unethical behavior, such as plagiarism or duplicate publication.

COPE and ICMJE Guidelines For Authors, Reviewers, and Editors
The Journal of Research in Health and Medical Sciences strictly follows the ethical principles of the COPE and the guidelines of the ICMJE  for defining the roles of authors and contributors, as well as ethical standards for editors. For more information, please refer to the following links:
COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
ICMJE Recommendations for Editors
Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (ICMJE)
COPE international standards for authors