Peer Review Process

Iranian Journal of Health Research and Development (Iran J Health Res Dev) is committed to a fair, rigorous, timely, and confidential peer review process in order to ensure the scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of all published content.

1. Peer Review Model

The journal applies a double-anonymized peer review process. In this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process, as far as possible within the journal’s editorial workflow.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to editorial assessment. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are sent for external peer review by qualified experts in the relevant field.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the editorial office and/or the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it is suitable for peer review. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

• relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

• scientific and scholarly relevance.

• originality and potential contribution to the field.

• compliance with the journal’s submission requirements and formatting standards.

• clarity of writing and overall presentation.

• the presence of required ethical and disclosure statements, where applicable.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, do not meet basic editorial standards, or fail to comply with submission requirements may be declined before external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication background, field-specific knowledge, and ability to provide an informed and unbiased assessment.

The journal seeks reviewers who have no disqualifying conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript under review.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript with respect to:

• originality and significance of the work.

• scientific quality and methodological rigor.

• validity of the study design, analysis, and interpretation.

• clarity, organization, and academic quality of the manuscript.

• ethical conduct and reporting of the research.

• relevance to the journal’s scope and readership.

Reviewer comments are expected to be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful.

5. Editorial Decisions

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor on the basis of editorial assessment, peer review reports, and the journal’s editorial standards.

Following review, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

In some cases, the editorial team may seek an additional review or further clarification before making a final decision.

6. Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit:a revised version of the manuscript; and a point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and editors. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

• reassessed by the handling editor.

• returned to one or more of the original reviewers.

• sent to an additional reviewer where further expert opinion is needed.

A revised manuscript may be declined if the authors do not adequately address the scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns raised during review.

7. Confidentiality of the Review Process

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content outside the editorial and peer review process.

Reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and manuscript files are used solely for the purpose of scholarly evaluation and editorial decision-making.

8. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers should disclose any financial, institutional, academic, collaborative, or personal relationship that could affect—or reasonably be perceived to affect—their objectivity in reviewing a manuscript. Reviewers who have a relevant conflict of interest should decline the review invitation.

Editors who have a conflict of interest in relation to a manuscript should not be involved in its editorial handling and decision-making.

9. Timeliness and Quality of Review

The journal values timely and high-quality peer review. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the requested time frame or to inform the editorial office promptly if they are unable to do so.

The journal also expects reviewer reports to focus on the scientific and editorial merits of the work and to provide comments that can help editors make an informed decision and help authors improve the quality of their manuscript where appropriate.

10. Appeals

Authors may contact the editorial office to appeal an editorial decision. Appeals should be submitted in writing and should clearly explain the academic or procedural basis for the request. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or another appropriate editor. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

11. Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Review

Through its peer review process, Iran J Health Res Dev seeks to maintain high standards of scholarly publishing and to support the publication of reliable and relevant research in medical sciences, public health, and healthcare research. The journal is committed to continual improvement of the fairness, consistency, quality, and timeliness of peer review.