Peer Review Process

The Journal of Clinical and Community Health (JCCH) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of all published manuscripts. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous during the review process to maintain objectivity and fairness.

Initial Screening

• All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, and formatting guidelines.

• Manuscripts containing incomplete data, unethical research practices, or placeholder content (e.g., lorem ipsum) will be automatically rejected and will not proceed to the review stage.

• Only manuscripts that meet the basic quality and ethical standards will be forwarded for peer review.

Peer Review

• Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodology, clarity, ethical standards, and contribution to clinical and community health.

• Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Decision

• Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor-in-chief makes one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

• Authors are expected to address reviewers’ comments and resubmit revised manuscripts within the specified time frame.

• Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is made.

Editorial Integrity

• The editorial team ensures that all review processes are conducted in a fair, timely, and transparent manner.

• Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or ethical misconduct will result in immediate rejection and may be reported to the author’s institution.