Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model
Multidisciplinary Healthcare Journal uses a double-blind peer review process. Author identities are hidden from reviewers when possible, and reviewer identities are hidden from authors unless the journal formally adopts an open review option in the future.
Review Workflow
  1. Initial technical check by the editorial office for completeness, scope, declarations, formatting, plagiarism screening, and ethical documentation.
  2. Editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor for relevance, originality, methodological quality, and suitability for peer review.
  3. External peer review by at least two independent reviewers when suitable for the manuscript type.
  4. Editorial decision based on reviewer comments, editor assessment, ethical requirements, and journal priorities.
  5. Revision by authors with a point-by-point response when revision is invited.
  6. Final editorial decision and production after acceptance.
Possible Editorial Decisions
  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject with invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript
  • Reject
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on expertise, independence, availability, publication record, methodological knowledge, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must declare any conflict that may affect their ability to provide an objective review.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, cite, copy, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content except for the purpose of journal peer review.
Editorial Independence
Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated academic editor. Decisions are based on scientific merit, ethics, originality, quality, relevance, and contribution, not on nationality, institution, personal characteristics, or commercial considerations.