Peer Review Process

JRHE uses a double-anonymized peer-review workflow with at least two independent reviewers.

  1. Submission & Desk Screening
    The editorial office checks scope fit, completeness, ethics compliance, and formatting. Manuscripts out of scope or clearly below threshold may be declined at this stage.
  2. Integrity & Ethics Checks
    Similarity screening (e.g., iThenticate) is performed. For human/animal studies, authors must document prior ethics approval, informed consent/assent, and privacy safeguards.
  3. Editor Assignment & COI Review
    A Handling Editor is appointed and screened for conflicts of interest (COI). Identities of authors/reviewers remain blinded throughout review.
  4. Reviewer Selection
    Editors invite qualified reviewers based on expertise and method fit; reviewers must disclose COIs and agree to confidentiality. Guest Editors for Special Issues follow the same standards under Editor-in-Chief oversight.
  5. Review Criteria
    Originality and contribution; methodological rigor and reporting quality; ethical compliance; clarity and organization; robustness of analysis; data/materials availability; implications for theory, policy, and practice.
  6. Editorial Decisions
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision (may require re-review)
  • Reject
    Authors submit a detailed response-to-reviewers and a marked-up manuscript for any revision. Multiple rounds may occur when warranted.
  1. Post-Acceptance
    Final checks include COI and funding statements, data/materials availability, ethical declarations, and license selection. Accepted papers proceed to production, author proofs, and online-first publication.
  2. Confidentiality & Responsible Use of AI
    Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, must not upload any part to public AI systems, and remain fully responsible for any AI-assisted drafting they disclose to the editor.
  3. Appeals & Complaints
    Reasoned appeals and complaints about editorial conduct are considered by the Editor-in-Chief (aligned with COPE guidance). Decisions are independent of authors’ ability to pay.