Peer Review Policy

Authors are expected to submit a suitably anonymised review manuscript where required by the journal's submission process. The Editorial Office may remove or request removal of obvious identifying information before external review.

JPMHR recognises that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed. Identity may sometimes be inferred from:

• study setting or institution;
• previously published protocols;
• preprints;
• trial registrations;
• distinctive methodology;
• self-citation patterns; or
• publicly known research programmes.

Where identity is reasonably inferred, reviewers and editors remain bound by the same confidentiality, impartiality, and conflict-of-interest obligations.

Article types ordinarily requiring external review may include:

• Original Research Articles;
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses;
• Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Prediction Studies;
• Brief Reports and Pilot Studies;
• Methodology and Validation Papers;
• Research Protocols;
• Case Reports where external clinical review is appropriate;
• selected scholarly reviews or perspectives; and
• other substantive content designated for external review.

Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, corrections, retraction notices, policy statements, and other editorial material may follow a different review pathway where appropriate.

Any departure from routine external peer review must not be used to avoid appropriate scrutiny of substantive scientific claims.

Initial screening may include assessment of:

• fit with the journal's aims and scope;
• manuscript completeness;
• article type and reporting structure;
• authorship and contributorship declarations;
• ethical approval and informed consent;
• clinical-trial or study registration where applicable;
• reporting-guideline compliance;
• funding and competing-interest declarations;
• data availability;
• prior publication or overlapping content;
• similarity or textual-overlap concerns;
• image or data-integrity concerns;
• permissions for third-party material; and
• other journal submission requirements.

A manuscript may be:

• advanced to external peer review;
• returned for technical or administrative correction;
• referred for additional editorial assessment;
• held while an ethics or integrity concern is clarified; or
• declined before external review where it is unsuitable or materially non-compliant.

Reasons may include:

• clear mismatch with journal scope;
• substantial methodological deficiencies;
• insufficient scientific contribution;
• major ethical deficiencies;
• inadequate reporting preventing meaningful assessment;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• serious unresolved authorship or integrity concerns;
• failure to comply with mandatory submission requirements; or
• other circumstances making external review inappropriate.

Desk decisions should be based on scholarly and ethical considerations rather than the author's institutional status, nationality, seniority, ability to pay publication charges, or commercial value.

Reviewers are selected according to factors including:

• subject-matter expertise;
• methodological expertise;
• relevant publication or professional experience;
• independence from the authors and study;
• absence of material competing interests;
• ability to complete an appropriate review; and
• previous review quality where known.

Additional methodological, statistical, clinical, ethical, genomic, artificial-intelligence, or other specialist review may be sought where the manuscript requires expertise not adequately covered by the initial reviewers.

Reviewer identity and suitability may be independently checked by the Editorial Office where necessary to reduce risks of fabricated, compromised, or manipulated peer review.

Suggested reviewers must not have relationships that could reasonably compromise independent evaluation.

Authors must not:

• provide fabricated reviewer identities;
• provide false or controlled email accounts;
• suggest reviewers using misleading affiliations;
• attempt to influence the review through undisclosed relationships; or
• otherwise manipulate reviewer selection.

The Editorial Office may verify reviewer identity, institutional affiliation, contact information, publication history, and potential conflicts before sending an invitation.

Evidence of deliberate peer-review manipulation may result in rejection and further action under the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.

Scientific Assessment

Reviewers should consider, as applicable:

• importance and clarity of the research question;
• appropriateness of the study design;
• adequacy of sampling and methods;
• validity of measurement approaches;
• statistical or analytical appropriateness;
• quality and completeness of reporting;
• ethical safeguards;
• interpretation of findings;
• limitations and generalisability;
• relationship between conclusions and evidence;
• data transparency and reproducibility where relevant; and
• relevance to the journal's scope and readership.

Professional Conduct

Reviewer comments should be specific, respectful, evidence-based, and actionable. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, insulting remarks, or demands unrelated to the scientific objectives of the manuscript are not acceptable.

Essential vs Optional Recommendations

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish revisions necessary for validity, transparency, ethics, or interpretation from optional suggestions that primarily improve presentation.

Potential conflicts may include:

• recent collaboration with an author;
• close personal relationships;
• direct academic or commercial competition;
• financial interests;
• institutional conflicts;
• active professional disputes;
• supervisory or trainee relationships; or
• other circumstances reasonably capable of impairing impartiality.

Where uncertainty exists, the reviewer should disclose the situation to the editor rather than independently deciding that it is irrelevant.

The editor determines whether the disclosed interest can be managed or whether another reviewer should be appointed.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts with unauthorised persons;
• use unpublished ideas, data, methods, or findings for personal advantage;
• disclose review contents outside the journal process;
• contact authors directly regarding the manuscript; or
• attempt to determine or publicly reveal protected author or reviewer identities.

Editors and journal staff are subject to corresponding confidentiality obligations regarding manuscripts, reviewer identities, editorial deliberations, and decision records.

Reviewers and editors must not upload or paste confidential manuscript text, figures, tables, datasets, reviewer reports, or unpublished findings into an AI system where confidentiality, storage, data use, or future reuse cannot be adequately controlled.

Human reviewers remain responsible for the substance, accuracy, fairness, and originality of their reviews.

Automated systems may support limited editorial screening where their use is consistent with confidentiality and journal policy, but automated output alone does not constitute a peer-review decision or a finding of misconduct.

Common decision categories include:

• Accept — suitable for publication subject to final technical processing;
• Minor Revision — limited changes are required and the central findings remain acceptable;
• Major Revision — substantial revision is required before a publication decision can be made;
• Reject — the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form or contains concerns not reasonably correctable through revision.

Where reviewer recommendations differ materially, the editor may:

• assess the competing arguments directly;
• seek clarification from reviewers;
• obtain another independent review;
• seek specialist statistical or methodological advice; or
• make a reasoned editorial decision based on the totality of evidence.

A numerical majority among reviewers does not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

Revised submissions should ordinarily include:

• a revised manuscript;
• a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments;
• clear identification of material revisions; and
• reasoned explanation where a requested change has not been made.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor without returning the manuscript to external reviewers.

Major methodological, analytical, interpretive, ethical, or reporting revisions may be returned to one or more reviewers or sent to a new reviewer where necessary.

Invitation to revise does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

The following are indicative operational targets rather than guaranteed deadlines:

Processing may take longer because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, specialist consultation, integrity checks, incomplete author responses, additional review rounds, or other circumstances requiring careful assessment.

JPMHR does not compromise peer-review quality merely to meet a target turnaround time.

Legitimate overlap may occur in:

• standard methodological terminology;
• ethical statements;
• instrument descriptions;
• references;
• technical phrases; or
• previously disclosed material.

Editors assess the location, extent, attribution, context, and significance of overlapping content.

Substantial unattributed overlap, misleading text recycling, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or evidence that the work is not sufficiently original may result in return for correction, rejection, or formal integrity assessment.

No similarity percentage by itself proves plagiarism or misconduct.

Concerns may include:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• image manipulation;
• unethical research conduct;
• inadequate ethical approval;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• authorship irregularities;
• fabricated citations;
• peer-review manipulation; or
• other material threats to the integrity of the work.

The manuscript may be temporarily paused while the concern is assessed under the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.

An author who is also an editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer coordinator, publisher representative, or other person involved in journal operations must not control the handling of their own manuscript.

Such persons must be excluded from:

• reviewer selection;
• access to protected reviewer identities;
• confidential editorial deliberations;
• decision-making; and
• any preferential processing of the submission.

An independent handling editor is assigned where required.

Guest editors may assist with topic development, editorial planning, and reviewer identification, but they must not compromise independent decision-making.

Guest editors must disclose competing interests and must not control decisions concerning their own manuscripts or submissions involving material conflicts.

JPMHR retains oversight of:

• editorial standards;
• reviewer independence;
• peer-review integrity;
• ethical requirements;
• acceptance decisions;
• post-publication actions; and
• appropriate labelling of special-issue content.

Appeals should identify a specific basis for reconsideration, such as:

• material factual misunderstanding;
• significant methodological misunderstanding;
• procedural irregularity;
• unmanaged competing interest;
• substantive reviewer misconduct; or
• important information that was not adequately considered.

Disagreement with reviewers alone does not automatically justify a new review.

Where appropriate, an appeal should be assessed by a senior or independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

Possible outcomes may include:

• upholding the original decision;
• reconsideration by another editor;
• additional independent peer review;
• replacement of a conflicted or inappropriate review; or
• another proportionate corrective action.

The following must not determine a peer-review or editorial outcome:

• payment or non-payment of publication charges;
• institutional prestige;
• author seniority;
• nationality or geographic location;
• publisher commercial interests;
• advertising or sponsorship relationships;
• personal relationships; or
• anticipated citation or reputational benefit.

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• COPE Guidance and Resources
• ICMJE Recommendations
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, endorsement, or certification unless such status is independently established and expressly disclosed.